Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the. Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petition for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

West Cheshire Water Board Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

MASTERS' CERTIFICATES.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any captains of British ships who do not possess the Board of Trade certificate of competence; if so, how many; and how many aliens are included in this number?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Masters of home trade cargo ships are not required by law to have certificates of competency, and it is not possible to say, without examining the papers of each ship, how many of the masters have not got certificates. Section 5 of the Aliens Restriction Act prohibits the employment of aliens as masters of British
ships, except those employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom.

Captain EVANS: Is it not a fact that there are many captains of British ships possessing masters' certificates who are unemployed, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the practice of employing non-competent men in this capacity is contrary to the best interests of the British mercantile marine?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I deprecate the use of the adjective "non-competent." The law is that a particular certificate is required for ships carrying passengers, but I deprecate the suggestion that masters of British coasting vessels, who arc very competent as British seamen, are not competent for their job.

Captain EVANS: I beg to withdraw that adjective.

ALIENS.

Captain EVANS: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of any ships flying the British flag and registered in London which are entirely manned, commanded and officered by aliens; and, if so, what steps the Board of Trade propose to take to ensure that vessels registered in the United Kingdom and having the right to claim protection of the British Empire are manned by British subjects?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that there are cases of the kind referred to, where vessels are trading between foreign ports. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of an answer given on 26th June, 1923, which sets out the reasons why an amendment of the law would foe ineffective for the object he has in view.

STEAMSHIP "RIVER TYNE."

Mr. HAYES: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the British steamship "River Tyne," whose articles were opened at Palermo in October, 1924, alien labour was engaged at wages £3 per month less than the standard rate laid down by the National Maritime Board; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with such infringements of the law?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The attention of the Board has recently been called to this case, into which investigations are being made. Instructions are being given to consular officers concerned to inform masters that the standard rates must be paid.

Mr. HAYES: What steps will be taken by the Board of Trade to enforce those conditions and to penalise owners who transgress?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to this particular case, I could not say until I have had an investigation made. With regard to the general question, as I have said, consular officers concerned have been instructed to see that masters understand the Regulations.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any figures he can give the House showing the numbers of British seamen, firemen, cooks, and stewards at present unemployed; and the number of British ships' officers without employment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The number of seamen, firemen, cooks, stewards and other workers employed on board ships, registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 2nd March, 1925, was 17,841. It is not possible to give separate statistics for the various categories mentioned, or for ships' officers not insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell me what is the position of ships' officers? Are there no suggestions at all with regard to them?

Mr. BETTERTON: The position as regards ships' officers is this: If an officer is in receipt of more than £250 a year he does not come under the Act at all. If he is in receipt of less than £250 a year it depends in each particular case upon whether he falls within the First Schedule of the Act of 1920, and it depends, therefore, upon the circumstances of each case.

Mr. B. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the term "British seamen" in the question covers Lascars as well as whites?

Mr. BETTERTON: I should like notice of that question, but I think not.

Commander BELLAIRS: Are not these figures vitiated to a very large extent by the regular practice of ships, after a half-yearly voyage, discharging their men and re-engaging them a month afterwards, after they have really been on holiday?

Mr. BETTERTON: I should also like notice of that question.

BRAZIL (PROFIT SHARING).

Mr. ALBERY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Brazilian Congress has adopted a Bill under which employés will be entitled to a dividend of at least 10 per cent. on the profits of undertakings, which dividends will be divided between them in proportion to their wages; and whether, if this is so, he can make arrangements to have a Report furnished on the working of this industrial innovation?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. I understand that a private Member's Bill, containing the provision mentioned by my hon. Friend, has been referred to the Social Legislation Committee of the Brazilian Congress, and been adopted by that Committee, subject to certain Amendments. So far as I am aware, however, no law containing this provision has yet reached the Brazilian Statute Book.

Mr. ALBERY: If that Bill be definitely put on the Statute Book, will the hon. Gentleman have a report made as to its working?

Mr. BETTERTON: Certainly if it is put upon the Statute Book we will look into that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

FOREIGN COMPETITION.

Mr. B. SMITH: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any evidence that a large proportion of the merchant shipping of this country is
out of date, inefficient, and in some cases unseaworthy; whether he proposes to take steps to re-classify and re-grade ships in the mercantile service; and whether he will take action to secure the restoration of the Plimsoll line of 1906, and thus give a stimulus to the shipbuilding industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Board of Trade have no evidence to support the suggestion that a large proportion of the merchant shipping of this country is out of date, inefficient and, in some cases, unseaworthy, and I do not think that anything would be gained by attempting to reclassify and regrade merchant ships. The whole question of load line was examined by a Special Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Philip Watts, which reported in 1915, and proposals based on their recommendations will shortly be laid before the Merchant Shipping Advisory Commitee, on which all the interests connected with shipping are represented. The position of the load line is governed, and should be governed, by considerations of safety alone.

Mr. LOUGHER: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that nearly 70,per cent. of the vessels engaged in the coal carrying trade of South Wales ports are of foreign nationality, and that the ship-repairing and marine engineering trade of South Wales ports is in a languishing condition; Whether he could state what foreign countries insist upon the vessels under their flag being repaired at their home ports under a tax penalty; and whether he will take action to avoid the unfair foreign competition which exists in ship-repairing and marine engineering under which many workers are rendered idle?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain A. EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to afford assistance to the ship-repairing industry under the Trade Facilities Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, it is, provided that the ordinary regulations are complied with and the application is entertained by the Committee.

Following is the answer:

Of the ships leaving ports in South Wales with cargoes of coal or coke during
the 12 months ended 30th January last, about 40 per cent. were foreign. I am aware that the ship repairing and marine engineering trade in South Wales is in a depressed condition. As regards the third part of the question, I am unable to furnish a complete list of foreign countries in which taxes are levied on repairs made to national boats in foreign ports, but according to my information such taxes are imposed in the United States, France and Spain. On the other hand, in a number of other countries, including Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, sea-going vessels are not subject to Customs Duty, and it would appear to follow that foreign material incorporated abroad in national ships of those countries would also be exempt from duty. The question of meeting foreign competition in the ship repairing and marine engineering trades is part of a very large question which is now being considered by the Committee on Industry and Trade.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he car give an analysis of how the German cost of construction of steamers compares with the British cost of construction?

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, considering the continued depressed state of the shipbuilding industry and the repeated loss of work due to foreign competition, he will be willing to set up a Commission to inquire into the causes?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not in a position to give a detailed analysis of comparative costs. I have, however, put such information as I have been able to obtain at the disposal of the Federations of Employers and Employed in the shipbuilding industry. As regards an inquiry, I would refer to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Kennington, of which I am sending my hon. Friends copies.

Sir W. MITCHELL: Will the House of Commons be put in possession of that information?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I am quite willing to give any information I can, but I think really the best thing I can do with regard to any information I get about shipbuilding conditions in
foreign countries is to put it unreservedly at the disposal of both employers and employed in the British shipbuilding industry. It would not be possible to lay a whole succession of reports in the House of Commons, but if my hon. Friend requires any particular information I shall be willing to give it.

Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the tremendous importance and the interest which is being aroused in the public mind on this point, would it not be as well that the House should be put in possession of any available information?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, I will certainly consider that, and also what is a convenient way of laying the information. It is quite possible to put in the Library a copy of the information I have, and I will consider that.

Mr. B. SMITH: With regard to laying the information before the interested parties, if not before this House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider including in that information the amount of British capital which is now being utilised amongst foreign shipbuilders?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am only too anxious to put at the disposal of those concerned in this great industry all the information I possess.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the information in the shape of a White Paper, so that we may all have it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: One is getting information from, time to time, and I think that probably the course which I suggested of putting in the Library a document summarising the Reports I have would in the first instance be the best.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has, or is able to obtain, information with regard to the payment of any subsidy by the German Government to German shipbuilding concerns; and, if so, whether he can state what is the amount of that subsidy?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know of any subsidy. But 50 million
marks have been set aside for loans for shipbuilding Such loans, I understand, are to be for a period of five to six years, bearing interest at ½ per cent. during construction, and thereafter at 4, 5 and 6 per cent. in subsequent years.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to how the British steel plate makers are subsidising foreign shipowners by selling them plates at 30s. a ton cheaper than they sell them in England?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no information at all that any British firm is selling to a foreign firm at a lower price than the firm can get elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

COMPENSATION AWARDS.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, when making the April final payment of 5s. in the £ in respect of awards for compensation under Article 297 (e) of the Treaty of Versailles, there will be added the amount of interest awarded by the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal or whether it is proposed to hold up such awarded interest till a date later than April next; and, if so, for what reason, in view of the fact that adequate funds are already in the hands of the clearing office?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The final dividend will be paid on all amounts awarded by the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal under the Article in question inclusive of any interest awarded by the Tribunal.

GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to the relations between the Agent-General for Reparations, the Transfer Committee, and the British Treasury in the carrying out of the German Reparation Recovery Act?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The Dawes Plan treats payments made by Germany through the German Reparation (Recovery) Act as a form of payment by deliveries in kind (see the last
paragraph of Section XI of the Report: Command Paper 2105, page 34). The duties and powers of the Agent-General for Reparations and the Transfer Committee in relation to deliveries in kind are set out in Section XIII and in Annex 6 of the Report (Command Paper 2105, page 35 and page 111) and apply to the Recovery Act in the same way as to any other delivery in kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ENEMY DEBT CLEARING OFFICE.

12 and 58. Sir J. MARRIOTT: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will state the present number of the Clearing Office staff at Cornwall House; and what staff reduction he proposes to make after the April payment of the final 5s. in the £, making a total of 20s. in the £ on accepted claims for compensation under Article 297 (e) of the Treaty of Versailles;
(2) whether he will allow his establishment officers to examine the Enemy Debt Clearing Office, Cornwall House, for the purpose of seeing whether all the present accommodation need be retained; and whether the staff can be reduced after the distribution under Article 297 (e) of the Treaty of Versailles has been made next month?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. As the answer is somewhat long, my hon. Friend will, perhaps, agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

A Treasury investigation of the Clearing Office is now proceeding in connection with the re-arrangements necessitated by the transfer to the Clearing Office of the work of the Trading with the Enemy Branch of the Public Trustee Office. It is expected that the transfer will result in a saving of about 14,000 square feet of accommodation, representing a rent of about £5,800 a year. The staff employed by the Clearing Office, including the Departments for the Administration of Austrian, Bulgarian and Hungarian Property, and the accredited representatives in Berlin, Vienna, Budapest and China, and the staff transferred from the Public Trustee Office, numbers at present
1,103. It is not anticipated that any substantial reduction of staff can be made as a direct result of the payment of the final dividend on compensation awards of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. The work in connection with compensation claims under Article 297 (e) forms only a small part of the work of the Clearing Office, which also 'has to deal with outstanding claims in respect of pre-War debts under Article 296 and claims under the Austrian and Hungarian Treaties, besides being responsible for the liquidation of the charged German, Austrian and Hungarian assets, and for accounting therefor to the opposing Clearing Offices.

POST OFFICE (WOMEN DOCTORS).

Miss WILKINSON: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Post Office is the only Government Department which pays its women doctors less than its men doctors for similar work; and whether, in view of the fact that the Post Office advertisements for posts at present vacant are being refused by the medical journals in consequence, he will bring his Department into line with other Departments in this matter?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The conditions under which women medical officers are employed in the Post Office are not analogous with those of other Departments. The question of equal pay for men and women is one which affects the whole of the Civil Service, and I am not in a position to recommend an exception in respect of this particular class of civil servant.

Miss WILKINSON: Why is there no analogy between the Post Office and the other Government Departments? Is not the work the same in each case, and has not the principle of equal pay been accepted by every other Government Department?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think that the circumstances in other Government Departments are analogous to those in the Post Office.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why they are not analogous?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I cannot go into explanations in answer to
supplementary questions. I believe that there is one other Government Department in which the service might be regarded as being approximately something of the same character. That is in the case of the Prison Medical Service. I think—I speak subject to correction—that in that case the same Regulation exists.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as the medical papers will not insert advertisements for women medical officers for the Post Office, it is necessary for the Post Office to enter into surreptitious correspondence with certain medical schools in order to obtain candidates, and does he consider that that is a dignified procedure for a Government Department?

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to set up a panel from which to select the members of Committees under the Safeguard of Industries proposals, and, if not, what plan he intends to adopt?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think any useful purpose would be served by setting up a panel, but suitable persons will be selected to serve on Committees as occasions arise.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet appointed any committees under the new plan for the safeguarding of industries?

Major CRAWFURD: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what applications have been received for inquiries under the plan for the safeguarding of industries?

Mr. MACKINDER: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply a list of industries which applied for safeguarding under Part II since the inception of the 1921 Act?

Colonel BURTON: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade what progress is being made with the safeguarding of industries; how many trades have applied for safeguard-
ing; and how many applications have been granted and how many refused since the constitution of the present Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I have already stated in this House, I do not think it would be expedient to give information as to applications, whether under the Act of 1921, or under the new proposals of the Government, other than those referred to committees of inquiry. In this I am adhering to the practice under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The application of machine-made lace and machine-made embroidery has been referred to a Committee, as already announced. The Board have also decided to refer an application in respect of superphosphate to a Committee, and a formal announcement of the appointment of this Committee will be made to-morrow. I will have a list of applications referred to Committees under the Act of 1921 circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. THOMSON: For the convenience of the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would give us a report from time to time of the applications as they come in, without any waiting?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, certainly not. As I explained very fully to the House and following the precedent under the earlier Act, I only propose to publish information about inquiries actually referred to the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it always announced as soon as an application is referred to the Committee? Are we always informed of that?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly. When the Committee is set up a notice is published in the Press.

Mr. MACKINDER: Are there any reasons why an industry which is applying to be safeguarded should have that application kept secret until it is referred to the Committee? Surely we ought to know.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are two very good reasons. In the first place, it is desirable that there should be no more time elapsing than is necessarily occupied between the reference to the Committee and the making of the Report
and action in this House if action is to be taken. In the second place, I think it is very unfair on the industry if it makes an application and it is turned down that that fact should be made public.

Following is the list referred to:

Fabric gloves and glove fabric for the manufacture of fabric gloves.

Domestic, illuminating and mounting glassware.

Wrought and enamelled hollow-ware.

Aluminium hollow-ware.

Gas mantles.

Plain and enamelled baths.

Optical elements and optical and other scientific instruments.

Glass bottles.

Wire nails.

Toys.

Gold leaf.

Gold and aluminium bronze powders.

Snap fasteners and books and eyes.

Vulcanised fibre.

Mr. LEES SMITH: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of Parliament imposing import duties under the safeguarding scheme to counteract unfair competition, as provided in Clause 5 of Instructions to Committees, provision will be made for the abrogation of such duties if and when the causes of such unfair competition, as reported by the Committees, cease to operate?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Member will refer to the White. Paper, he will see that it is intended that any duties which may be imposed in consequence of the recommendations of Committees shall be imposed by a Finance Act. They will be for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in such Act in each case.

Mr. SMITH: 20.
also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an industry using in production goods of a class for which a safeguarding duty is claimed will have its case automatically considered by the relative Committee under Instruction No. 7, or whether it will be necessary for the damnified industry to be present, by counsel or otherwise, in order to prove its ease against the proposed duty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Full opportunity will be given for any using industry that may consider itself likely to
be affected by the imposition of a duty to bring its case to the attention of the relevant Committee, in such manner as it may think proper.

Mr. SMITH: My question relates to the case of an industry which is not organised and could not bear the expense. What is the provision for dealing with that case?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that any industry which really has a claim as a material-using industry is quite in a position to bring its case before the Committee.

Mr. MACKINDER: If the names of industries making application are to be kept secret, how can subsidiary industries within them make an application to be heard, when they do not know which industry is applying?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: But they do know, because, as soon as an application is referred to a Committee, that is published, and it is only in that case that a using industry is interested.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the term "damnified," used in the question, is a correct term to use? What is the meaning of the word "damnified"?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a classical term.

Mr. L. SMITH: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether interests who are not permitted to give evidence before a Committee appointed under the safeguarding scheme may appear by counsel who shall have the right of cross-examination?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. It is not intended that the Committee should be compelled to hear counsel on behalf of persons whose evidence is not in the opinion of the Committee relevant to their inquiry.

Mr. SMITH: In the case of an industry which is not in fact used by some other industry, how are the facts relating to the applying industry to be brought out?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: By the relevant evidence. The position, really, is quite clear. The Committee have to find certain facts, and any evidence relevant to those facts the Committee will be entitled to hear, and to hear counsel
upon it. I do not propose that the Committee should be burdened with cross-examination by counsel on matters that are not relevant to the inquiry.

Mr. SMITH: I understand that the only industries which can, appear are those using the goods of the industry applying under the Act, and, if no such industry is using the goods, how can it appear to cross-examine?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The facts as regards an industry using the goods are relevant in so far as there is a claim that a duty would damnify an industry which is using the goods. If no industry uses the production of the industry applying, obviously evidence on that point is irrelevant; but it would be perfectly relevant to submit rebutting evidence on the ground of either efficiency or foreign conditions.

Mr. SMITH: But who will submit that evidence?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ARTIFICERS, ROYAL ARTILLERY.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the average period served by the artificers in the Royal Artillery before they are promoted to non-commissioned rank; and how does this period compare with the promotion of gunners?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Taking as the basin of comparison the average service before promotion of the present bombardiers, artificer bombardiers served seven years and nine months as artificers, other bombardiers four years and one month as gunners or drivers. The total Army service of the former group is, on the average, appreciably longer than that of the latter, and the conditions of promotion are consequently not comparable, but I may say that these conditions in the case of artificers are now under examination.

SINGAPORE (LAND DEFENCES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War what new land defences will be necessary for the protection of the proposed
Singapore base; what will be their cost; and when it is proposed to commence work on these defences?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The question of the defences required for the protection of the Singapore Base is still under consideration by the Committee of Imperial Defence. It is not possible to make any statement at present regarding their cost or the date of commencing work upon them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it, however, that the present position, with only one battery of artillery, is quite inadequate, and that there will have to be increases?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait. I cannot give information on the point at the moment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman, are the present defences sufficient, or will they have to be increased?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It will depend upon the report finally of the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching Australia and New Zealand on the matter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That really does not arise out of this question.

LEICESTERSHIRE YEOMANRY (BATTLE HONOURS).

Mr. EVERARD: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will sanction the award of battle honours to the Leicestershire Yeomanry for the period from March, 1918. until the Armistice, when the squadrons of that regiment were attached to the three cavalry regiments then comprising the 3rd Cavalry Brigade?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I greatly regret that I cannot depart from the decision, which was arrived at by the Army Council after careful and sympathetic consideration, that the Leicestershire Yeomanry are not eligible for the award of battle honours in respect of the period in question. During this period
the Leicestershire Yeomanry and other Yeomanry regiments wore absorbed as reinforcements in the Cavalry Corps, and did not take part in any engagements as individual units. Their application could not be granted without reopening one of the main principles on which battle honours have been awarded.

Mr. EVERARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regiment of Life Guards went out as a composite regiment and received battle honours at the beginning of the War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware of that, but that does not state the whole case, and I am afraid I cannot argue at Question Time.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is it not a fact that the Leicestershire Yeomanry were brigaded as a unit in the same cavalry brigade for nearly three years?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: For all the time the Leicestershire Yeomanry were fighting as a separate unit they have received battle honours. The period in question was that period during which their individual members were absorbed in another cavalry regiment.

CASUALTY ALLOWANCES, SUDAN.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War what are the rates paid to soldiers disabled in the recent disorders in the Sudan; what are the allowances to widows and parents of soldiers killed; and why these rates and allowances arc less than those in similar casualties in the Great War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the reply to this question involves a large number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the comparative figures show that they are greater or smaller?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They are smaller. The answer gives the comparative figures.

Following is the reply:

The rates of pension payable in respect of casualties arising out of the disorders in the Sudan are those which were fixed by His Majesty's Government after the
War for future general application in the Navy, Army and Air Force. The rates for soldiers invalided range from 6s. 6d. to 32s. 6d. a week, according to the degree of disablement, with additions for service and rank; for widows they range from 10s. 6d. to 20s. according to age and other circumstances, with additions for rank and 5s. a week for each child under 16; for parents, the rates are from 7s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. a week according to age, degree of dependance, etc.

IRISH FREE STATE (TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS).

Colonel GRETTON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Government of the Irish Free State has given or is giving notice to terminate the employment of some 300 British ex-service men taken over whilst employed in Government Departments in Ireland when the Free State was established; that these men in most cases were domiciled in England before they were taken over to serve in the Departments of the British Government in Ireland; that they are now being discharged to make room for ex-soldiers from the Army of the Irish Free State: and that they have no prospect of any employment in Ireland; and whether ho will take steps to offer employment in the British service to such of the British ex-service men now discharged as may apply for such employment?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am informed that the total number of temporary civil servants who have been or are being discharged by the Government of the Irish Free State up to the present docs not exceed 100, but I have no information as to how many of these arc ex-service men or what was their domicile prior to their employment by the British Government in Ireland. The reason for these discharges is partly the cessation of the temporary work on which these temporary staffs have been employed, and partly the replacement of temporary staff recruited without examination by permanent staff recruited after competitive examination. Ex-service men discharged are eligible for competitive examinations limited to temporary civil servants in order to give
them an opportunity of entering the permanent service. I regret that it is not possible to extend the recent arrangements regarding ex-service men in British Government service so as to include those who are no longer in that service.

Colonel GRETTON: Am I to understand that the British Government denies all responsibility in the case of these men?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, it is clear in my answer that when the job ceases to exist their temporary employment comes to an end, but they will, as in this country, have an opportunity of sitting for an examination so that they can become permanent.

Colonel GRETTON: Does my hon. Friend undertake that these persons discharged from the Government in the Free State will have the same opportunity of employment as ex-service men who have held appointments in Great Britain?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The difficulty there is that I understand a large number of ex-service men—there is no reason to suppose that all these who are now being discharged in Dublin are ex-service men—who have had to be discharged from British Government offices in this country, have a greater claim.

Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of finding employment for these discharged ex-service men from Ireland?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question of the employment of ex-British service men in the employment of the Irish Free State Government by this Government is a matter obviously for the Treasury rather than for myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SANATORIA, GLASGOW.

Mr. COUPER: 33.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any complaints have been received in regard to the sanatoria accommodation in Glasgow: whether he can state how many persons were waiting for admission to sanatoria in Glasgow on 7th March: and what is the longest period any of these applicants had been waiting for admission?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. On the 7th March the number of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis waiting admission to institutions was 71, of which 23 were cases recommended for sanatorium treatment. Normally the period of waiting for pulmonary cases recommended for institutional treatment does not exceed from 10 to 14 days. During winter pressure a case may wait for as long as two months, but regard is had in every case to the patient's condition, and in the event of urgency admission would be arranged without delay.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Commander WILLIAMS: 34.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what results have been obtained from the investigations of the salp in northern waters, and as to its effect on the herring industry?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In the summers of 1920 and 1921 salps were found in enormous numbers in the north-western part of the North Sea, where they had not been observed since 1905. The presence of these Atlantic organisms was evidence of an extensive invasion of the area in question by warm Atlantic water. The precise effect of these abnormal conditions upon the herring fishing has not been established, but it is the fact that in 1920 and 1921 they coincided with poor results in the great herring fishery off the coast of Scotland. Research into these questions is being continued. The abnormal conditions have not recurred since 1921. The circumstances were reviewed by the Fishery Board in their Annual Report for 1921, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Commander WILLIAMS: Has my hon. Friend any information from American sources on the subject?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Not that I am aware of.

Major COHEN: What is salp?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Salp, I understand, is a peculiar organism of a trumpet shape.

SMALL HOLDINGS. GRETNA.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 35.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether
his attention has been directed to the final deliverance of the Land Court on the application of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (Gretna) holding issue at Edinburgh on the 14th February, 1925; and whether, in view of the fact that the note attached to this deliverance contains a recommendation that the authorities should make every effort to remedy the undoubted grievance in the distance of certain of the present dwelling houses from the steadings and the holdings, ho will consider the desirability of assisting the present holders to exchange their existing dwellings for any suitable permanent buildings which may come on the market closer to the steadings and the holdings, such assistance to take the form of a loan to the smallholder at a suitable rate of interest?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen the note referred to, which is in more qualified terms than my hon. and gallant Friend's question suggests. I do not consider that it would be justifiable to incur further expenditure in the provision of other dwelling-houses for these holdings. Any disadvantages to the holders arising from the distance of their dwelling-houses from the holdings have been taken into account by the Scottish Land Court in fixing the rents of the holdings and the valuation of the existing holdings.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Do not the Land Court in fact recommend that steps should be taken to remedy this?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, they drew attention to the circumstance.

CLIFF FENCING, TOTEGAN, SUTHERLAND.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 30.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is a fence at Totegan, near Strathy, in the county of Sutherland, now in need of repair; that a fence is urgently required along the cliff further to the west; that over 100 people are concerned in the application for material to fence the cliffs, and that this fence would prevent constant loss of stock and enhance the prospects of success of the Board's recent scheme at Armadale; and whether the Board will grant the material for the construction of this fence?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the request made to the Board of Agriculture to repair and provide the fences referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. The Board have given it their careful consideration, but have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified in granting the application.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the hon. Baronet not aware that this property belongs to the Board of Agriculture? I am sure the Board of Agriculture will fulfil its obligations.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the upkeep of the fence is maintained by the holder.

LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 37.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the amount of under-employment and consequent distress in congested districts of the Highlands of Scotland, he will in future consider crofters paying less than £10 of rent as eligible for employment on unemployment relief works, and especially upon land drainage schemes?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not prepared to adopt the principle suggested by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to eligibility for employment on land drainage schemes. If, however, a crofter was formally habitually and necessarily engaged on wage-earning work, which at present through economic reasons is not available, and is accepted as an unemployed man at the local Employment. Exchange, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland would regard him as eligible for employment upon land drainage schemes.

GLASGOW VETERINARY COLLEGE.

Mr. MAXTON: 39.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if ho has any statement to make with regard to the position of the Glasgow Veterinary College in reference to a continuation of the present grant till the end of the college session; and if the college will still be entitled to receive grants as a central institution from educational authorities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As regards the gap between the end of the current financial year and the end of the college session, I am awaiting a Report which the governors of the college are preparing,
and which I have undertaken to consider. The discontinuance of the annual grant from the Board of Agriculture will not affect the position of the college as a central institution within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.

PIER ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 40.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a commission to inquire into and report upon the pier accommodation in the West Highlands and Islands?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think that it is necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry into this question. I am, however, examining the situation in the light of existing information.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will the Minister take some steps to reopen Loehboisdale pier, while he is still young?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question was answered last week.

HOUSING, DUNDEE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 41.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet considered a resolution passed unanimously by the Corporation of Dundee on the 5th instant, urging the immediate introduction of legislation to prevent the conversion of dwelling-houses into shops and business premises during the present scarcity; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to in the first part of the question. I am not in a position to make any statement concerning it except that full consideration will be given to its terms in the event of legislation being introduced on the point to which it relates.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Seeing that such conversions are taking place in England and Scotland, should not Sections 5 and 6 of the expired Housing (Additional Powers) Act. 1919, now be introduced?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No. not without very careful consideration. I do not think it is necessary, as my information is that there is a very small number.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Commander WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what measures he proposes to take to prevent the continued decline in the numbers of men engaged in the fishing industry, in view of the serious ultimate effect it must have on recruiting for the Navy, on the provision of men for the merchant service, and the food suply of the country?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I have been asked to reply. The decline referred to arises mainly from decreased activity in the herring industry, general post-war depression, and the increased adoption of mechanical methods of fishing. I am glad to say that there are strong indications of the arrest of the decline, as there were 600 more men employed in 1923 than in 1922, and I expect the figures for 1924 will show a further increase. The Government is fully alive to the importance of the industry as a recruiting ground for the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, and, as I have indicated in a previous answer, will do whatever is reasonable and practicable to foster it.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the refusal of Government to continue the credit facilities for Scottish fishermen which were afforded in the last Parliament must have the reverse effect to that which he indicates in the answer he has given?

Mr. WOOD: I was not fortunate enough to catch all the hon. Baronet said, but what I did catch made me suppose I could not answer the question completely without notice.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is not the improvement in this industry due to the reopening of trade with Russia?

Mr. WOOD: I have no evidence to that effect.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what salary is paid to the Professor of Publicity of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I would refer the hon. Member to the
answer which my right hon. Friend gave to him in reply to a similar question on the 4th March.

Sir B. FALLE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Government guarantee certain sums of money, and if they guarantee the money ought not they to know how it is spent?

Captain KING: We give certain sums of money with a definite object, but we have no financial liability, and therefore we have no control.

Major HORE-BELISHA: What does the Professor of Publicity do? Does he profess, or does he practise?

Captain KING: As a Department we have no knowledge of the existence of the gentleman.

COLLIERY EXPLOSION, ST. HELENS.

Mr. TINKER: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that on 3rd March there was an explosion of firedamp at No. 3 colliery, Clock Face, St. Helens, Lancashire, causing injuries to two men; and, in view of the consequences that can arise from accidents of this character, will he have the strictest inquiry made into the cause, so that every precaution can be taken to prevent their occurrence?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): Yes, Sir. For the reasons given by the hon. Member, the inspectors of mines arc doing everything possible to find the cause of this accident.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

Captain A. EVANS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if the Committee of Imperial Defence has yet reported on the suggested setting up of a Ministry of Defence and the institution of a joint staff college; and whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on this matter

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 3rd March to a question by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, from which he will see that the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of
Imperial Defence, under the chairmanship of Lord Salisbury, which inquired into this question in 1023. was presented to Parliament (Cmd. 2029).

EMPIRE PRODUCE (STATE GRANT).

Major WHELER: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before any decisions are taken on the expenditure of the State grant of one million sterling to encourage the importation to this country of Empire overseas produce, he will allow a full discussion of the matter in the House of Commons in order to insure that, whilst encouraging the importation of such produce, the position of the home producer is not injuriously affected

The PRIME MINISTER: No expenditure can be incurred on this service until the necessary Vole has been passed by the House of Commons. When a full scheme has been prepared, an Estimate will be presented, and there will thus be abundant opportunity for discussion. Meanwhile, I should like to take this opportunity of repeating the assurance already given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that great care will be taken in the administration of this policy to make sure that no injustice is done to home producers.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does that mean that there will be no discussion in this House until after the Imperial Economic Committee has considered the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would not like to say that. The discussion of principle will, obviously, come on the Colonial Office Estimates, because the Colonial Secretary will desire to gay something on it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the home consumer be considered when this matter is discussed, and not simply the home producer?

Mr. HURD: Seeing that at the Imperial Conference every one of the Dominion representatives said that he agreed that the first place must be given to the British producer in the British market, could not we have a discussion on the subject before the Committee makes its Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have said that the discussion will obviously arise on the Colonial Office Estimates.

CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present amount of the unpaid assessed arrears of Corporation Profits Tax and the estimated amount of this duty still to be assessed?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The approximate amount of Corporation Profits Tax in assessment (less arrears shown due to be remitted) at the end of February, 1925, was £15,500,000. It is thought that the amount of this duty still to be assessed may approximate to £10,000,000. In regard to both these figures it should be explained that considerable reductions will fall to be made as the result of objections and appeals, and the sum to be received by the Exchequer is likely to fall substantially short of the aggregate assessment stated.

NOTE ISSUES, BANK OF ENGLAND AND TREASURY.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total issue of notes, the total reserve of gold and silver, and the total fiduciary issue should the Bank of England note issue and the Treasury note issue be combined; and what would have been the corresponding figures five years ago?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the reply contains many figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply

On the assumption made, the figures on the 25th February, 1925, would have been

£
s.


Total issue
399,376,080
10


Gold
153,761,020
0


Fiduciary issue
245,615,060
10

In addition to the gold, silver coin to the value of £7,000,000 is held in the Currency Note Account, but this is not reckoned as reducing the fiduciary issue.

The amount of currency notes of the 1st and 2nd Series, which have been called in, but not yet cancelled, amounted on the 25tb February, 1925, to £1,349,457; these notes are not included in the figures shown above.

The figures of the combined issues five years ago (25th February, 1920) would have been:

£
s.


Total issue
449,057,682
10


Gold
138,213,890
0


Fiduciary issue
310,843,792
10

Thus the total gold cover increased in the five years by more than £15,500,000, although the total issue was reduced by nearly £50,000,000.

PERFUME SPIRIT.

Commander WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has had his attention drawn to the loss of spirit in the manufacture of perfume and that this loss places the British producer at a serious disadvantage in competition with the foreigner; and if he proposes to take any action to remedy this anomaly?

Mr. GUINNESS: Taken on the average, the import duty appears to have a distinctly protective element, and I am not therefore satisfied that the British producer is placed at the disadvantage suggested in the question.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present incidence of the tax is very disadvantageous to the gardening industry?

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Major CRAWFURD: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to introduce legislation providing pensions for widows on a contributory or any other basis?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which the Prime Minister gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Western Isles.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT (GUARANTEES).

Mr. JACOB: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware
that, in the case of guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act for purposes other than public utility purposes, the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee has definitely refused to accept the principle that the recognised association in any trade should be given an opportunity of expressing the views of the trade as a whole on the effect likely to be produced on it by the granting of any such guarantees; and whether he will issue instructions that, before granting facilities in such cases, inquiries shall be made to avoid excessive increases of plant and capacity in competitive industries?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the Committee were asked to agree to consult with trade associations in every case of guarantee which might concern any existing British manufacturers. The Committee felt that it was quite impossible for them to tie their hands by a general pledge, although they do in fact consult with trade associations and other competent authorities from time to time as they consider necessary. As regards the second part of the question the hon. Member may rest assured that the Committee are aware of the danger mentioned. I think the Committee are the proper persons to settle their own procedure, and I do not propose, as at present advised, to limit their discretion.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee also consults with trade unions?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope they make all the inquiries in any quarter which they think will be fruitful.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the answer he has just given would apply to a non-federated firm, and in that instance, would it not be prejudiced evidence?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Here is a Committee charged with the distribution of important public credits, and I am sure that they are using their discretionary power with the sole object of making as much work as possible during these exceptional times. I am certain that it would greatly hamper them were we to lay down a lot of hampering conditions.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that successive Chan-
cellors of the Exchequer and successive Financial Secretaries of the Treasury have assured us that this Advisory Committee is outside and detached from any influence of one business concern or another?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure that is so. I am sure they endeavour to do their work in an impartial and honourable manner.

INCOME TAX.

Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAM: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue have instructed collectors of Income Tax, in cases where assessments are made on the same person under Schedules D and E, and where the combined instalment due exceeds £50, that the limit of £50 applies to the Schedule E assessment separately, although the whole amount demanded exceeds this; and whether, in view of Section 30 of the Finance Act, 1924, he will have, these instructions withdrawn?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that my hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension in thinking that the instructions go beyond the provisions of Section 30 of the Finance Act, 1924. That section applies where the amount of any Income Tax for the time being due and payable under any assessment, is less than £50.

DUTY ON BETTING.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the necessity of seeking contributions to the revenue from those avenues which have not already been exploited, he will adopt the view of the Select Committee on Betting that the imposition of a duty on betting was practicable, and take the necessary steps to secure to the revenue the £5,000,000 it was estimated this tax would produce?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: Is it not a fact that Income Tax is collected from bookmakers at the present time?

SURPLUS STORES DEPARTMENT (GRAVEL PITS, STONEHOUSE).

Sir FRANK NELSON: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the non-payment of certain accounts by the Surplus Stores Department in respect of the lease by the Office of Works of certain gravel pits near Stonehouse, Gloucestershire; whether he is aware that these accounts are some two years overdue and have long been passed for payment by an officer of the Government; if he will cause inquiries to be made as to the delay in settlement; and is he aware that the Department have not replied to many letters addressed to them on the subject by parties interested?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is presumed that the hon. Member has in mind two small claims for rent and wayleaves which have now been paid. The delay in settlement, which is regretted, was due to a change of staff following reductions in establishment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD-PARTY DISKS).

Mr. EVERARD: 64.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Rigby Swift, at Leicester assizes, in which the learned Judge referred to the vital necessity at an early date of legislation rendering compulsory insurance of all motor vehicles against third-party risks; and if he will consider the advisability, from the point of view of all road users, of initiating such legislation?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): My attention has not been drawn to the remarks of the learned Judge. I may say, however, that I have received many representations on the question of compulsory insurance by motorists against third-party risks, and I am carefully considering the point in connection with the proposals which are now before mo for legislation with regard to road vehicles.

RURAL ROADS.

Mr. HURD: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the mileage of rurai roads in the care of rural district councils; to what extent are these roads the subject
of grants from the Road Fund; and how many rural district councils have received no grants from the Fund?

Colonel ASHLEY: At 31st March, 1924, the mileage of highways for the maintenance of which rural district councils were responsible was 93,938 miles, out of which 3,394 miles were subject to grants from the Road Fund as Class I or Class II roads. Out of a total of 651 rural district councils, 171 councils have not received any grants from the Fund since 1st April, 1923, either under the classification scheme because they have no Class I or Class II roads, or under the special allocation for the improvement of important roads in rural areas.

RIBBLE MOTOR SERVICES.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport if it is his intention to order the Borough of Rawtenstall and the Ramsbottom Urban District Council to grant licences to the Ribble Motor Services, Limited, to run services from Burnley to Rochdale, from Burnley to Bury, and from Burnley to Bolton, all three of which routes traverse the whole length of Burnley Road West tramway route, at present served by corporation omnibuses and tramways; and, in view of the fact that such action will involve the Corporation of Rawtenstall in serious financial loss, he will postpone his decision and make further inquiries into the financial results of such action upon the municipally-owned undertakings?

Colonel ASHLEY: The refusal of the local authorities to grant licences, and the application of the Rawtenstall Corporation for consent themselves to operate an omnibus service outside their area to Burnley on the route referred to, were fully investigated at a local inquiry which occupied three days. At this inquiry the corporation were legally represented and the financial position of the tramway undertakings was exhaustively dealt with. I have intimated to all the parties interested that I cannot support the local authorities in their total refusal to grant any licences to the company, and also that my consent will be given to the corporation operating a service of omnibuses as far as the borough boundary of Burnley outside their own area. I have also suggested that the parties concerned should meet in an endeavour to agree with regard to the
services and conditions of operation in the general interests of the public, and have offered to render any assistance in my power.

Mr. J. H. PALIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of his attitude towards the local authorities not only involves a loss of trade, but also a very severe loss in rates and, in connection with the previous answer, a loss on the upkeep of roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot admit that that contention is correct. I always do my best to safeguard the local traffic of local omnibus or tramway companies.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is not a decision like this, which may involve a serious loss to municipalities, putting too great a responsibility upon an individual?

Colonel ASHLEY: The duty is put upon him by the Act of 1920, and if the hon. Gentleman does not like it he should seek to have it changed.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Does not this go to show that Socialist enterprise can succeed only where it has a monopoly?

Mr. B. SMITH: Is not the action taken with regard to municipalities in the provinces contrary to the action taken in the case of London?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not agree with my hon. Friend.

LONDON OMNIBUS TRAFFIC.

Sir F. HALL: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport how many additional omnibuses were placed on the streets by the London General Omnibus Company and its associated companies during December, 1924; how many of these vehicles were of the obsolete B type; and how many further omnibuses have been placed on the streets since 1st January, 1925, by the combine and by other proprietors, respectively?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed that no addition was made during December and January last by the London General Omnibus Company and associated companies to the numbers of omnibuses which were in service prior to 1st December. Sixteen new omnibuses were placed on the streets by the company in January last, but these were in substitution for "B" type vehicles withdrawn from ser-
vice. With regard to other proprietors I have not comparable figures. Ninety-eight omnibuses were licensed to ply for hire in January last, but I am unable to state how many of these were vehicles which had previously been licensed or how many, if any, were substituted vehicles.

Sir F. HALL: Is it true, or is it not true, that a large number of obsolete omnibuses were placed on the streets by the London General Omnibus Company during the months of November or December in order that they might have their licences increased?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no knowledge of that. If my hon. Friend will put down a question I will endeavour to ascertain.

Sir F. HALL: This is part of the question which I particularly want to have answered.

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not been able to get the information.

Sir F. HALL: I will put down a question.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite sure that, when the London General Omnibus Company said that these omnibuses were in service they did not mean that they were in a garage ready for such an eventuality as this order.

MIDDLESEX (NEW ROADS).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the new roads in the county of Middlesex, Cambridge Road and the Great West Road are not being used; if so, what is the reason for their non-use; and whether any steps are contemplated whereby these roads shall be utilised for heavy motor and other forms of transport?

Colonel ASHLEY: As far as my observation goes, these roads, although not yet open for their entire length, are already attracting a considerable volume of traffic, which will increase when the highways are open from end to end. In the case of the Great West Road, I hope that the opening will take place at the end of May. At the London end of the New Cambridge Road completion is
delayed on account of certain demolitions, which cannot be undertaken at present.

PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES (DESIGN).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he now or in the near future contemplates drafting Rules and Regulations regarding the design of passenger-carrying vehicles, especially in relation to emergency doors, lighting, etc., whereby passengers using these vehicles in country districts may travel in greater safety; and whether such rules and regulations will tend toward a more uniform type of vehicle?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have at present no adequate powers to make regulations of the kind indicated in the question. The whole question of the regulation of public service vehicles has been most carefully investigated by a Departmental Committee, and I propose to seek additional powers in the Road Vehicles Bill which was referred to in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, and which I hope before long to have an opportunity of presenting to the House.

Major WHELER: Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman has no power to limit the increasing size of vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no power myself. In the Metropolis the Commissioner of Police has power, but apart from that I have none.

TRAMCARS (PASSING HOSPITALS).

Colonel DAY: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport if representations have been received from officers in charge of hospitals of the effect of the passing of tramcars upon the recovery of the patients, some of whom have undergone serious operations; and whether he will consider the desirability of making a Regulation that tramcars shall be driven slowly and with a minimum of noise when passing hospitals?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not appear to have received any such representations, and I may point out that in any case it would not be within my power to make a Regulation of the kind suggested.

LONDON TRAFFIC (RESTRICTED STREETS) REGULATIONS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport, with reference to the London Traffic (Restricted Streets) Regulations, when he expects to arrive at a decision as to cases of hardship, particularly those of ex-service men who have put their savings into the purchase of single omnibuses, and who, since that purchase, have been debarred by these Regulations from putting them on the streets?

Colonel ASHLEY: The London Traffic Committee are personally investigating cases of alleged hardship. On the 9th instant they interviewed 13 persons, and on Sunday last 61 persons, and I am awaiting their Report.

OMNIBUSES (TOP-DECK COVERS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport whether some of the new omnibus type of covered-in double deckers are ready; and, if so, whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in issuing the licences?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no knowledge of any motor omnibuses of a suitable type with rigid top-deck covers being available for use on the streets of London, and I am informed that no such vehicle has yet been presented to the licensing authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ADVERTISEMENTS REVENUE.

Colonel DAY: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the estimated revenue that will be receive J by the Post Office during the 12 months ending the 31st March, 1925, in respect of advertisements in post offices and postal stamp books; and whether any portion of this revenue is devoted to improving the postal facilities?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The estimated revenue from advertisements in post offices is £20,000 and on books of stamps, £9,500. The receipts form part of the general income of the Post Office services and are not earmarked to any particular purpose.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (LICENCES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General how many licences for experimental purposes in wireless telegraphy and telephony have been taken out to date; and how many licences have been issued for wireless receiving sets?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of experimental sending licences in force at the end of last month was about 2,200, and the number of receiving licences was about 1,311,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures showing the number of sets in use for which no licences have been taken out?

Colonel DAY: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider reducing the fee charged for licences for wireless crystal sets?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not consider that differentiation can properly be made between a crystal set and a valve set in fixing the fee payable for a wireless receiving licence. If it should be found possible at some future time to make a reduction in the present licence fee, it would apply to both crystal and valve sets.

Colonel DAY: As crystal sets as a rule only cost a few shillings, and are in the households of the working classes, while the other sets cost sometimes as much as £100, will the Postmaster-General take that fact into consideration?

POSTAL REMITTANCES (STAMPS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 84.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, for the benefit of those who make use of postage stamps for the purpose of sending small sums of money through the post, he would consider the suggestion of allowing the recipients to obtain payment in cash for these stamps if and when presented at a post office?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Postage stamps are intended for the prepayment of postage and not for remitting money, for which purpose postal orders are available. There are strong objections to any steps which would facilitate the disposal of stamps; and I am averse to encouraging their use for remittance purposes.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman not again consider that it would be a very great convenience to poor people who have to send small sums to be able to send them in postage stamps?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have given the matter careful consideration, and I would remind the hon. Member that postal orders are intended for the purpose to which he has referred

RICHMOND, SURREY (POSTAL SERVICE).

Sir N. MOORE: 85.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will have inquiries made to ascertain what can be done to improve the postal service at Richmond, Surrey, under which Regulations the last delivery in the evening is 4.30 p.m., whilst in some parts of the town business letters are frequently not delivered until 8.45 a.m., the first delivery next morning?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will have inquiries made, as desired by my hon. Friend.

FOREIGN OFFICE (WIRELESS MESSAGES).

Mr. FORREST: 80.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will lay before the House copies of any Press wireless messages which have been issued during the last week by the Government for overseas publication, so that Members may judge of their nature and utility?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to take this question, as presumably the hon. Member refers to the British official wireless messages issued by the Foreign Office. I shall be happy to arrange that copies of the messages issued during the last week shall be placed in the library of the House, where they can be inspected by the hon. Member.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. RILEY: 86.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the arrangements, if any, under which the owners of land repay the amounts advanced by the State for schemes of agricultural land drainage; and if any portion of the expenditure is finally borne by the State or by local authorities?

Mr. WOOD: There are two kinds of schemes of land drainage for the alleviation of unemployment which the Ministry is prepared to assist financially, namely, those promoted by drainage authorities and voluntary schemes organised by the agricultural committees of county councils in areas where no statutory drainage authority exists In the case of drainage authorities' schemes, advances are made up to 75 per cent. of the net cost of the schemes, and the balance has to be provided by the drainage authority out of the rates levied on the owners of land. In the case of voluntary schemes organised by county agricultural committees, the Ministry provides the net cost of the schemes, and one-third is recoverable from the owners of the lands benefited by the works within six months of completion.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE CONTROL).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the names of the individuals who are the present members of the State management districts council?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The members of the council are my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Secretary for Scotland and myself, with two Departmental representatives (Sir John Pedder and Mr. P. J. Rose), and four others, Mr. Waters Butler, Mr. S. O. Nevile, Sir John Sykes and Sir William Towle.

89, Sir A HOLBROOK: asked the Home Secretary whether any member of the local advisory committee of the Carlisle State management districts scheme is at any time employed professionally in connection with the enterprise; and what is the total amount of remuneration which ha3 been paid in respect of such professional services?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the last part, I can only say that, when members of the committee have been employed professionally, their remuneration has been at the ordinary professional rates.

FOOD PRESERVATIVES COMMITTEE.

Mr. CADOGAN: 93.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to publish the evidence upon which the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee dealing with the use of preservatives in food were based; and whether he is prepared to set up an Advisory Committee upon which trade representatives having practical experience should be asked to serve?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): In accordance with present practice it is not proposed to publish the evidence given before the Departments Committee on Preservatives in Food. My right hon. Friend does not contemplate setting up a Standing Advisory Committee on food questions, but he has published the draft Regulations in order that the views of the trades and others concerned might be received and considered by him. I may add that a number of such representations have already been received.

HOUSING (STATISTICS).

Mr. SHEPPERSON: 94.
asked the Minister of Health what is the number of houses within the area of rural district councils in England and Wales built under the Housing Act of 1923; what is the number of houses built in similar areas under the Housing Act of 1924; and what is the number of houses purchased by occupiers in the same areas under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of houses completed up to the 1st instant within the areas of rural district councils in England and Wales under the Housing, &c, Act, 1923, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, was:

Act of 1923
17,350


Act of 1924
270

Up to January last rural district councils had made advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to owner-occupiers for the purchase of 466 houses; and, in addition, had made advances under Section 5 of the Act of 1923 in respect of 1,231 houses, and had given guarantees to building, etc.,
societies covering 38 houses. Certain county councils tad also made advances under these provisions, but my right hon. Friend has no information as to the number of houses in rural districts in respect of which advances had been made by these authorities.

TUBERCULOSIS SANATORIUM (KELLING).

Mr. BROMLEY: 95.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the tuberculosis sanatorium at Kelling, Norfolk, which caters for the town of Great Yarmouth with a population of some 66,000 people, has only 24 beds allotted to that, town, and that consequently Yarmouth patients, ex-service nun amongst them, who are certified by the medical officer of health for sanatorium treatment, are waiting several months for admission and treatment, with resultant serious consequences; and, if so, does he propose to take any steps to deal with the situation?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The returns received by my right hon. Friend's Department from the town council show that they have some 32 beds available at various institutions, including the Kelling sanatorium, for the treatment o; tuberculosis; that they propose to provide additional beds for children; and that there are no ex-service men and very few civilians on the waiting list The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

SOCTAL SERVICES (RATE RELIEF).

Mr. GROVES: 96.
asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the circumstances attending the general decrease of the incomes of the majority of ratepayers in the country: is he aware that just as the people of a locality become poorer, so the social services required become greater: and whether he will consider representations to the Government for relief to localities from a greater portion of the cost of maintenance of highways, education and police services?

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid that the complicated question of the relations between national and local taxation cannot be adequately dealt with within
the limits of an answer to a question. But in any case it is, in the view of my right hon. Friend, essential that, before any revision of the present Exchequer grants is undertaken, there should first be secured an equitable system of rating and valuation, and, as the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject at an early date.

ANIMALS (HUMANE KILLER).

Mr. GROVES: 97.
asked the Minister of Health if he nil) state the number and names of local authorities which have adopted Clause 90 of the Ministry of Health bye-laws requiring the use of a mechanically stunning instrument in the slaughter of animals?

Sir K. WOOD: I presume the hon. Member refers to Clause 9 n., which provides for the use of a mechanical instrument. This bye-law has been adopted, in whole or in part, by 136 local authorities, and I will send the hon. Member a list of their names.

SANATORIA. ASYLUMS AND POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. GROVES: 98.
asked the Minister of Health if he will slate the average cost per individual, including administration, of patients maintained in sanatoria, asylums, and Poor Law institutions, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 25th February to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division, of which I am sending him a copy.

MOTOR VEHICLES, (IMPORTS).

Mr. DENNISON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply derailed information as to the export and import of motor-cars, motor commercial vehicles, motor cycles, and parts thereof, together with the respective values for 1915 and the following years, giving particulars for the month of January, 1915 and 1925, separately?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the answer is rather long, the hon. Member will, perhaps, not object to my having it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

following is the answer:

The detailed information for which the hon. Member asks would, if printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT, fill a considerable number of pages, and, as it is to be found in official publications, copies of which are available in the Library, I am venturing to give the references to those publications. If the hon. Member, after consulting them, desires any further assistance, I shall be happy to render it as far as I can.

Particulars of the quantity and value of motor cars, motor cycles, and parts thereof, registered as imported into and exported and re-exported from Great Britain and Ireland, are given as follows:

For the years 1915 to 1919, inclusive, in Vol. I of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1919 (pages 32, 49, and 65); for 1920 to 1923, inclusive, in Vol. I of the Annual Statement for 1923 (pages 51, 52, 90 and 135); for the year 1924, in the Monthly Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for December, 1924 (pages 73, 174, 175 and 216); for the month of January, 1915, in the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for January, 1915 (pages 73, 132–3 and 157); and for January, 1925, in the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for January, 1925 (pages 5S. 120 and 147).

Some details as to the countries from whence imports and to which exports were consigned will be found, in respect of the years 1915 to 1923, inclusive, as follows:

For the years 1915–1919, inclusive, in the Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom for 1919, Vol. I (pages 106 to 169, 306 to 308, and 613 to 016); and for the years 1920 to 1923, inclusive, in the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1923, Vol. II (pages 303 to 309, and 653 to 659): and Vol. III (pages 488 to 499).

MR. HARPY POLLITT (KIDNAPPING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has now any further information with regard to the alleged kidnapping of Mr. Harry Pollitt, at Edgehill Station, on Saturday last, and his forcible detention until
Sunday afternoon, and whether he has inquired from the station authorities as to their non-interference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir. I have received a report which confirms the statements in the hon. and gallant Member's question of yesterday. I understand that the railway officials did not interfere, although appealed to, because they thought Mr. Pollitt was a person legally under restraint. The inquiry is being continued.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it a very curious state of affairs when anyone can go into a railway station and get hold of him or of me or of anyone else and tell the officials that he is, or I am, under restraint, and nothing is done? Ought there not to be some Regulations governing such a ease, so that the station officials must be satisfied as to the bona fides of people who proceed to act in this way? Ts the right hon. Gentleman going to allow the matter to rest where it is with regard to these station officials? [Laughter.]

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is not a question for any hilarity. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about this case of kidnapping? Does he propose to take any steps to inquire by whose authority this kidnapping took place and who is at the bottom of it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. The answer to the hon. and gallant Member was that the inquiry was being continued. I need hardly say that I am pursuing my inquiries. The police have already communicated with Mr. Pollitt, and if Mr. Pollitt is prepared to take the necessary proceedings all the assistance that I can give him will be at his disposal.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in receipt of any information as to whether rehearsals of moving pictures were going on in that district?

Mr. HAYES: Have the police inquiries taken them to the temporary headquarters of the National Fascisti movement, at 1S4A, Oxford Street. London, and are the police in possession of a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Pollitt this morning? If not, I shall be very pleased to let the right hon. Gentleman have a copy of it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Up to the moment I have not had a copy of that letter. I am sure it is desirable on all hands that justice should be done in this matter, and that I should not state more fully now the direction in which the inquiries are going. The hon. Member may rely on it that I shall continue to probe this matter fully.

Mr. J. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the British Fascisti, or those gentlemen who speak on their behalf, arc saying that, when they cannot get their own way by constitutional methods, they are prepared to fight for it? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take any steps to stop this display of force on the part of the Fascisti?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot deal with assumptions of that kind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister how far the Government propose to go this evening in the event of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being suspended?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are moving the Motion which stands in my name as n. precautionary measure in regard to the first two Orders, as it is necessary to get them. In addition, we propose to take four non-contentious items, namely, Orders 4 (Trade Facilities Bill, Committee), 6 (Air Ministry (Croydon Aerodrome Extension)), 8 (Agricultural Returns Bill), and 9 (Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill), and we will not, in any event, take the Report stage of the Army Vote to-day.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I notice the right hon. Gentleman states that Orders 4 (Trade Facilities Bill, Committee), 6 (Air Ministry (Croydon Aerodrome Extension)), 8 (Agricultural Returns Bill), and 9 (Importation of Pedigree Animals

Division No. 43.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balniel, Lord


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Sarclay-Harvey, C. M.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Atkinson, C.
Bellairs. Commander Carlyon W.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bennett, A. J.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Bill) are non contentious, but some of us on this side feel that No. 4 at least is contentious.

The PRIME MINISTER: I had hoped, after the discussions which have taken place, that No. 4 would be regarded as non-contentious.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this is a question which particularly affects some of our constituencies, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to allow us more time to discuss it?

The PRIME MINISTER: There has been an exceptional amount of time already allotted, and if the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended there will be ample opportunity for discussion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year, when our Government was in office, far more time was allowed for the discussion of this subject than has been given this year?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that only emphasises the fact that there is not so much need for discussion now.

Mr. MacDONALD: May we take it that Item 4 is not going to be taken at an inconveniently late hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the first two items are secured, I have, no desire to keep the House up at night. T should like to get one or two of these Orders if they prove non-contentious, but it is not my intention to keep the House late.

Mr. LAMB: Can the Prime Minister say if he is taking the Imperial Institute Money Resolution?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not to-night.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 128.

Berry, Sir George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meyer, Sir Frank


Betterton, Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Goft, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. at. Hon. B. M.


Blundell, F. N.
Grant, J. A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greene, W. P, Crawford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H, (w'th's'w, E)
Morrison, H, (Wits, Salisbury)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Murchison, C. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Briggs, J. Harold
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Neville, R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hammersley, S. S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harland, A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Oakley, T.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ormsby Gore, Hon. William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'v)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Owen, Major G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pease, William Edwin


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pennefather, Sir John


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Penny, Frederick George


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perring, William George


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Pielou. D. P.


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hilton, Cecil
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Price, Major C, W. M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holt. Capt. H. P.
Ramsden, E.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Homan, C. w. J.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)


Christie, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remnant, Sir James


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosslay)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Clayton, G. C.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Major L.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Huntingfield, Lord
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Couper, J. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col, George L.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandeman. A. Stewart


Cowan, Sir Wm, Henry (Islingson, N.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sanderson. Sir Frank


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crook, C. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Savery, S. S.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shepperson, E. W.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Sir G. (E Sussex, E'stb'ne)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Spender Clay. Colonel H.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Elliet, Captain Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Han. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Etveden, Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


England, Colonel A.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, Capt. P, D. (I. of W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacIntyre, Ian
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fielden, E. B.
Macmillan Captain H.
Thomson. Sir W. Mitchell (Croydon, S.)


Fleming, D. P.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Titchfield, Major the Marquest of


Ford, P. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


Forestler-Walker, L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace. Captain D. E.


Forrest, W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Watts, Dr. T.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Wells, S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric



White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dalrymple
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Hacking.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, w.).

NOTICES OF MOTION.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. HARRISON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the present condition of the fishing industry, and move a Resolution.

ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. GEORGE HIRST: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of accidents in mines, and move a Resolution.

COAST EROSION.

Mr. SAVERY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the amount of land lost to this country by the process of coast erosion, and move a Resolution.

INDUSTRIAL PEACE.

Major AINSWORTH: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the necessity of confidence between those engaged in industry, and move a Resolution.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY (AMENDMENT).

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend Section seven of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, for the purpose of enabling a defective to be removed from an institution for the purpose of being placed under guardianship.
This very small Bill is designed to remedy a defect in the Mental Deficiency
Act of 1913. Under that Act mental defectives are liable to be dealt with by means of certain judicial proceedings which are necessary in their own interests and in the interests of the society in which they live. Under these proceedings a judicial Order may be made by the judicial authority authorising detention in an institution or under guardianship in order that the defectives may receive the appropriate medical and other treatment. There is another provision in the Act authorising a simple method of procedure by which persons under guardianship may be transferred to an institution, but there is no comparable procedure under which a mental defective in an institution can be transferred to guardianship. The fact is that after a period of treatment in an institution—usually after a considerable length of time—it is sometimes found that such improvement takes place that it is desirable that the patient should be removed from the institution and placed under guardianship, both in the interests of the patient's health and happiness and also in the interests of economy, detention in an institution being very costly. The Bill authorises the transference of patients from an institution to guardianship under the Order of the judicial authority which originally made the order of detention or another judicial authority, following exactly the same procedure that has been found to work very well in the case of transference from guardianship to institution. I speak with a little experience on this matter as, since 1913, I have been Chairman of the Central Association for Mental Welfare, which has a great deal to do with the administration of the Act throughout the country, and I know from our own experience, and from the experience of the Board of Control, that it will be of great public advantage in the administration of the Act if this small legislative change could be made. The Bill is a one-clause Bill, and everything that can be said upon it can be said in Committee or on Report Stage just as well as on Second Reading. The reason I have adopted this procedure for introducing the Bill is because I wish to ask the Members of the House who are present if they would not consider, when the Bill comes up for Second Reading, whether
they might not allow it to pass as unopposed business at 11 o'clock.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Leslie Scott, Mr. Fisher, Sir Henry Slesser, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, and Mr. Gerald Hurst.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY (AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to amend section seven of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, for the purpose of enabling a defective to be removed from an institution for the purpose of being placed under guardianship," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, and Mr. Webb nominated Members of the Select Committee to consider the Imperial Institute Bill.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERODROME EXTENSION) BILL.

Mr. Hartshorn, Captain Reid, and Major Sir Philip Sassoon nominated Members of the Select Committee upon the Air Ministry (Croydon Aerodrome Extension) Bill.— [Colonel Gibbs.]

PERFORMING ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

VALUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the- Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Theatrical Employers' Registration Bill): Sir Alfred Butt, Colonel Day, Sir Walter de Frece, Sir Nicholas Grattan Doyle, Mr. Grant, Major Hore-Belisha, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Solicitor-General and Colonel Woodcock.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fourteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Summer Time Bill): Sir Henry Cautley, Major Colfox, Mr. David Grenfell, Sir Harry Hope, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Lamb, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Frederick Roberts, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Trevelyan, Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward, and Mr. Cecil Wilson.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had
discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Colonel Vaughan-Morgan; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Charles Craig.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee C: Mr. Blundell and Sir Gerald Strickland.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper, I notice that they are almost entirely a repetition of the Amendments which were moved in Committee, and were there discussed at considerable length. I do not think that the Report stage should be a repetition of the Committee stage, but at the same time I am reluctant to interfere with any hon. Members who wish to take the decision of the House, and I shall not use my powers of selection unless I find that too much liberty is being taken in the earlier stages of our proceedings.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: May I respectfully ask you whether in the circumstances you would allow a rather longer discussion on the Amendment which raises the right of the taxpayer to a share in the capital assets created. That is the largest principle at stake in the Amendments before the House, and I think I may say, on behalf of my hon. Friends that, if that were the understanding, there would be no difficulty.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am anxious always to meet the wishes of hon. Members on a Bill in that way. I am glad to know which is the main point.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Surely, no question arises as to the State getting any portion of the capital assets.

Mr. SPEAKER: The point could be raised in the Debate.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Accounts of companies in receipt of subsidy to be laid before Parliament.)

(1) Any company to which a subsidy is paid under this Act shall send annually to the Minister a statement in the form of a balance-sheet, audited by the company's auditors, containing a summary of the company's share capital, its liabilities, and its assets, giving such particulars as will disclose the genera] nature of those liabilities and assets and how the values of the fixed assets have been arrived at, and also a statement of profit and loss, audited in
2112
the like manner. Every such statement shall be made up to such date as may be specified therein and shall be sent to the Minister within ninety days of that date.
(2) If a company makes default in complying with the requirements of this Section it shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the default continues.
(3) The Minister shall lay before Parliament copies of all balance sheets sent to him in accordance with the requirements of this Section.—[Mr. E. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause has relation to the financial position of companies enjoying the subsidy, and requires them to furnish annually a statement of accounts. Upstairs in Committee there was some discussion on this point, and there was a very general feeling that it was right and proper, in regard to these companies who for a period of 10 years will be, through the Subsidy, in receipt of public money, that as full information as possible should be available to the Minister and to Parliament as to the progress of the undertakings. On consideration present to the minds of those who have examined this point was that at the end of the 10 years they wished Parliament to be in as favourable a position as possible for judging on the argument that it was thought might then be advanced in favour of the continuance of the subsidy. That consideration received a considerable measure of support from all sides of the Committee upstairs, and I therefore made it my business to endeavour, as far as might be possible, to produce agreement in order to save trouble when it came to this stage. I, accordingly, had the advantage of some consultation with those who had moved this Clause upstairs, and also with representatives of the companies who are going to be affected by it, and, as a result of those consultations, the Clause on the Paper appears as what we call an agreed Clause, and as such, therefore, speaks for itself, and I think its terms are sufficiently plain. I do not think it will be necessary for me to say more about it than that the object of the Clause is to secure as full information as possible for the Minister, in the first place, and, in the second place, to secure to Parliament all the information that can properly be laid
before it in order to place Parliament in the position that, as I have said, it was felt desirable that it should occupy, of being able to form an informed judgment of the situation at the end of the subsidy period.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side, to thank the Minister of Agriculture for the way in which he has met us on this particular point. The question was raised in Committee because there was an Amendment, standing in my name, requiring that, in the case of firms who were receiving a subsidy, their accounts should be submitted to public audit. It was made clear that it would be difficult under the law to require a public audit, and, on the whole, I think the Minister has gone a long way to meet us on this question. I will only say further that I think it is a very good precedent to establish, and that in the case of any public money of this kind being voted, not only should the Minister—and, I would hope, Parliament as well, but we-have gone as far as we can—have full information, but that Parliament should always be in receipt of such official statistical and costings information as would enable it to come to a sound judgment, if, at any time, there was a further application, either for a renewal of the grant or for the voting of new money. As the right hon. Gentleman has very largely met us on that matter, and has been very good in consulting us, I only want to say that we accept the Clause as drawn, and thank him for his consideration.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I do not want to disturb agreement, especially as I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) that the new Clause proposed by the Minister will improve the Bill, but, without wishing to alter the foundation upon which he has been building, I would ask him to consider, and I would ask the hon. Member for Hillsborough also to consider, whether it is not possible slightly to strengthen the Clause. Those of us who, for one reason or another, from time to time have to try to get information out of balance sheets, and even out of profit and loss accounts, whether in the Law Courts or other places, know that the amount of information they give varies very considerably, according to whether those
who draw them up desire to give details or do not. I am making no reflection on the honourable profession of chartered accountants, but it is well within the knowledge of everybody acquainted with business that, in a great many cases, a balance sheet, though no doubt properly certified by most eminent accountants, shows very little information indeed. It seems to me that, applying the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, and which is approved by the hon. Member for Hillsborough, we want to be sure that the balance sheet and the profit and loss account are really such as give adequate information.
I notice that the Bill in more than one place, following a very familiar legislative device, speaks of requirements being prescribed by rules, and indeed, as is common in such Bills, the word "rules" is defined, in the last Clause, as meaning "rules made for the purposes of this Act by the Minister." I am not opposing the Second Reading of the Clause, but I suggest that it might be amended by inserting, I think between the first and second Sub-sections, a provision to the effect that such balance sheet and statement of profit and loss shall be drawn up in accordance with rules which will give the Minister from time to time the power to say what he requires. I suggest also that we should insert some provision to the effect that the Minister may require such explanations in relation thereto as may seem to him proper.
After all, if Parliament passes this Measure, it is going to give very large sums, provided by the taxpayer, for the special behoof of select and special interests. That may or may not be justified, but, at any rate, it is a very remarkable and unusual use of public money in this country until very recent years. I rather think my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) will confirm me when I say that those who have looked into past efforts have not been altogether satisfied as to the skill and wisdom with which the finance of these enterprises has been conducted, and it seems to me that, as a practical matter, it might be very well worth considering whether the Clause could be so extended. I notice that the third Sub-section of the Clause, as proposed by the Minister, secures that
The Minister shall lay before Parliament copies of all balance-sheets sent to him
in accordance with the requirements of this Section.
and if we were at the same time to secure that these balance sheets were really in adequate detail, and provision was made about the other documents I referred to. I think Parliament would feel that, while it was committing the taxpayer to a very great outlay on this special class of enterprise, at any rate we had done our duty in securing that proper supervision was exercised over the way in which public money was spent.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: I am entirely in agreement with what the right hon. and learned Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has said, but I think that this object might be much more easily attained, and, therefore, I would like to move as an Amendment to the new Clause to omit from line 4 the word "general," so that it would then read
giving such particulars as will disclose the nature of those liabilities and assets
and so on. That word "general," if it is left in the Clause, makes a very great difference to it, because it enables the auditors to draw their balance sheet in the ordinary way in which a company's published balance sheet is drawn, and leaves them at liberty not to disclose most important facts as to the inter-related holdings of the company in question, and other companies of one kind and another. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that this is an agreed Clause, and if those with whom he has made this agreement object to this Amendment, I think the House might well consider whether their objection has not got something more behind it than appears at first sight.
If, by this agreement, both parties were agreed that the balance sheet ought to be published, and ought to be in the hands. not only of the right hon. Gentleman himself, but of this House, surely that balance sheet should be a true balance sheet, and true not only in what it puts down, but in the sense that it includes everything that is really necessary, so that the general public, and this House in particular, may know exactly what the situation of the company is. If we put in the word "general," the assets and liabilities, and particularly the shareholdings, will be lumped together in the way in which they are lumped
together in an ordinary published balance sheet of a public company, and that prevents us from knowing exactly those points that we most want to know about. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to accept this very small Amendment and to omit the qualifying word "general."

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I desire, in a very few words, to support the two last speeches that have been made, and formally to second the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the House be agreed on the principle of the Clause, had we not better read it a Second time, and then proceed with the Amendment? We cannot have Amendments until the Clause has been read a Second time.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the word "general."

Sir L. SCOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. WOOD: I entirely appreciate the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hopkinson), shared by the right hon. and learned Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), to make sure that this Clause should in fact produce the effects that are anticipated of it, and I should be anxious to co-operate with them as far as I might in that desire. I do not myself profess to have the legal knowledge that is so useful to those who possess it in matters of this kind, but, as far as I was able to apprehend the wording of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, I am rather inclined to think that I would prefer it to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mossley. The hon. Member is perhaps aware that these words in the course of which the word "general" occurs are taken, I think verbatim, out of the Companies Act of 1908. I do not profess to be an expert in company law, and it may be that the word "general" is an undesirable word in that law, but I do not want to set to work in this little Bill to amend the company law. I prefer, therefore, to rest myself upon the fairly broad platform of precedent as it is built in company law. For that reason, I am unwilling to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for
Mossley, but, if and when the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley is moved, I do not think I should find the same objection to it.

Sir HARRY FOSTER: I hope the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) will be able to take the suggestion of the Minister, and will withdraw his Amendment, in order that the Amendment foreshadowed by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) may be formally moved. The right hon. Member said he did not want to throw any aspersion upon the honourable profession of chartered accountants, but there is no reference to chartered accountants in the Clause. Any layman, under the wording of this Clause, may be the auditor of the company concerned, and, therefore, we have not even got that safeguard, whereas the safeguard suggested by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, of giving the Minister power under the rules to require further information and to see that he is afforded full and proper information, is such that I cannot conceive any hon. Member of this House objecting to it, and, as an old chartered accountant myself, I may say that I am quite sure that no chartered accountant would object to it.

Mr. HOPKINSON: On the undertaking of the Minister, I think my Amendment had better be withdrawn, but I should like him to give us a guarantee that when the Companies Act is amended, so as to get rid of that most objectionable word "general," which has given rise to very great scandals in company law, as I hope it will be amended shortly, the right hon. Gentleman will also arrange to introduce a Bill to amend this Clause so as to follow that precedent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, after Sub-section (1), to insert a new Subsection—
(2) Such balance sheet and statement of profits and losses shall be drawn out in accordance with rules, and the Minister may require such explanation in relation thereto as may seem to him proper.
I am sorry I was not able to put this down, but I have furnished my right hon. Friend with a copy of this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has withdrawn his Amendment, and I agree with him
in the hope that the Minister's rules, if he accepts this Amendment, will he such as to secure something better than a mere disclosure of the general liabilities, because the whole point of this is to enable businesses to set out fully what is the actual position. May I point this out to the House: it is one thing to criticise the present company law in respect of the requirements of balance sheets or other matters, but, after all, nobody is obliged to put his money into a private company unless he chooses to do it, and he docs it—I will not say with his eyes open—but he does it with the knowledge that he is exercising his choice in so doing. Here, however, we are putting the taxpayers' money into an enterprise, whether the taxpayer likes it or not, and, therefore, there is a much stronger case for having a frankly clear and specific statement as to what are the assets and liabilities, the profits and losses, of the company in question.

Colonel COURTHOPE: Might I say one word on behalf of several of the companies concerned. I want to make it quite clear that we have not the slightest desire to conceal anything. We do, however, want to avoid publication of matters that are intimate and might be of value to our Continental competitors, though we are willing to disclose them to the Minister. We are also anxious—and this proposal does not at all conflict with our anxiety—that one audit should satisfy the requirements both of this Act and of the Companies Act. It would be a great inconvenience to a company to have two separate audits for two separate purposes. Subject to these few remarks I should like to assure the House that we have no desire to keep back material facts, and I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that it should be made clear that the audit is to give the Minister reasonably full information as to what is going on.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that the disclosure of the shareholders by the company would be valuable information to Continental competitors?

Colonel COURTHOPE: I am not aware of any objection to disclosure of shareholdings, but the information asked for by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mossley might be held to require a
complete schedule of bock debts in the balance sheets.

Mr. WOOD: As I indicated just now, I shall be very glad to accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which I think is of value in insuring the result that we seek, but I should like to have the opportunity, suggested to me by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Colonel Courthope), to remove any misconception—if any such exists—as to the attitude of the companies. I have no complaint to make, throughout these discussions, of the way in which I have been met by those who are connected with these companies. Indeed, the contrary is the case. I have every cause to thank them for their attitude to me. Therefore, while I am unable to tell the right hon. Gentleman as to the form of rules that the Minister of Agriculture may devise, because obviously that is technical and requires careful consideration, I can assure him and the House that the object, as I see it, shall be to insure, so far as practicable, that the Minister of Agriculture shall be placed in possession of the relevant information.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Information as to the use of public money which is here sought for is an altogether different matter from that dealing merely with the publication of processes. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite who has been so closely associated with this industry actually is apprehensive. I notice, however, that in connection with Kenley the company did not hesitate to publish its profits for the year 1923. The profits for that year were made known. I want to suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that these figures have been given voluntarily, and I am quite sure that he would give what was necessary to the public quite willingly, though I doubt very much whether he would wish to give any information to his Continental competitors. But why should there be apprehension about the figures of the profit and loss account being made public not only by the Minister, but laid before Parliament? The proposal which has been made by my right hon. and learned Friend does not provide for publication. That, I understand, is going to be provided for 'by the acceptance of an Amendment by the Minister when we
come to Sub-section (3), where I should like to add the words, after the words "balance sheets" ["copies of all balance sheets"], the words "profit and loss account, and such explanation." This would provide for the publication of the balance sheet and profit and loss account and any explanation furnished to the Minister. I understand that such explanation as the Minister would ask for would not be an explanation of the processes or the way in which the profit had been made by the processes. It is essential if public money is to be granted that this explanation should be full and frank. Everybody knows that a giant of public money by way of subsidy is open to abuse. It might be possible to use the subsidy—I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend opposite would not do anything contrary to what was right—but he might not always be in control, and there are ingenious people who, if they Were in control of such a company, might use the subsidy provided by the State for improper purposes. The only thing that is asked for in this Amendment, that those purposes should be brought under the eye of the Minister. I go further and will suggest that it ought to be brought to the knowledge of Parliament, for I need hardly point out that it is not the Minister that grants the money, but Parliament, and Parliament has the right to ask, if it does grant public money for full information as to the way in which that money has been used. The proposal that is made will provide for fuller information than which is granted under the very sketchy words of Sub-section (1) as it now stands. The omission of the word "general," as proposed by my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Hopkinson), would certainly have improved this Sub-section. Seeing that that has remained in. the only safeguard we have is the higher standard—if I may say so—than is required by private companies, which can be applied by the Minister in regard to these companies for the help out of public funds.

Mr. BALFOUR: I rise only to call the attention of the Minister to what may possibly occur if these words be accepted as they stand—
Such balance sheets and statement of profits and losses shall be drawn out in accordance with the rules.
Are these rules to be fixed before the subsidy is paid, and, if so, are they
capable of being changed with the change of Ministry? If so, that seems to me to be a point that ought to be looked into. In view of this the Minister I think ought to reserve himself the right of consultation with the right hon. and learned Gentleman with a view to inserting an appropriate Amendment in another place: otherwise there may be confusion when the time arrives for the operation of this Bill.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The new Clause that has been put forward by the Minister has been put forward to meet the representations made in Committee, and in subsequent negotiations where we came to an agreement. I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley indicated that he did not desire to disturb an agreement but to secure an arrangement which would strengthen the position. There seems, however, to be some point in the observations made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) as to what may result in the event of a change in the personnel of the Ministry of Agriculture. It may well be that the effect of the right hon. and learned Member's Amendment will be to cut both ways, and might in some circumstances have the reverse of the effect desired. Perhaps it would have been better if the legal knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman had been directed to this Bill at an earlier stage than that of "Report, and then we might have made more rapid progress. Unless the Minister is quite sure about the effect of that Amendment I hope that he will be able to tell us that he will have consultation and further legal advice before he finally accepts it.

Mr. WOOD: If I may say one word by leave of the House, I have taken legal advice on this Clause, and also other advice. The dancer of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) brought to the attention of the House is, I think, one of substance. Therefore, the suggestion that I propose to make to the House—and I think it will be convenient to follow the lines suggested by the hon. Member opposite who has just spoken (Mr. Alexander), for which I thank him—and in accepting the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to make it quite clear that Should further legal consideration lead me to suppose that it involves fallacies of
which my simple judgment is unaware, that I should reserve the liberty to have those fallacies corrected in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: In regard to the further Amendment in line 1, of Subsection (3), to insert the words "statements of profit and loss and explanations," is it not the ease that these statements are already provided for in the first Sub-section?

Sir J. SIMON: If one looks at the form in which the first Sub-section is drawn up, it will be noticed that the second line speaks of the duty of sending annually a statement "in the form of a balance sheet." Further down, in the sixth line, one finds the words "and also a. statement of profit and loss." I venture to think that as the right hon. Gentleman's Clause is at present drawn Subsection (3) has the effect, and as it is drawn it is intended to have the effect, of laying before Parliament only the balance sheet, and not laying before Parliament also the statement of profit and loss.

Mr. SPEAKER: I see the point. Does the hon. and learned Member move?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in line 13, after the word "sheets," to insert the words
statements of profit and loss and explanations.
I do not know that I need to add to the remarks I made on an earlier Amendment expressing the hope that the Minister and those who have been acting with him will agree to the publication of the profit and loss account as well as the balance-sheet. There is a distinction and often a material difference between them when you come to dealing with public money. I cannot think my hon. and gallant Friend who represents the companies' point of view in this matter feels their position will be at all damaged by the publication of profit and loss accounts. Indeed, if his company is a public company, the information would be published in some form or other. The amount of profit for the year will be known, and what objection there can be to the publication of the profit and loss account according to the rules provided I cannot see. I am quite sure that if the present Minister remains in office, whatever changes may be made
in the rules, he will do nothing to give to the foreign competitors of the industry which he is endeavouring to foster with public money information which would enable them to do injury to the infant industry here. Surely no harm can be done by publishing the results of their profit and loss account for each year, in order that Parliament may know whether the granting of public money for this purpose has been worth while, and whether we are justified in going on with the subsidy, and even in increasing it for a longer period after the present proposal has come to an end.

Colonel COURTHOPE: I am rather in a difficulty about this Amendment, and as a preface to my remarks I should like to say that the profits which were mentioned in a previous speech about the profits published by the Cantley Company, were, if I remember aright, those included in the balance-sheet. No balance-sheet will balance unless the profit or loss is brought into it from the profit and loss account. Everyone with any experience of company work is aware of that; and so the profit on a year's working, or the loss, will necessarily be included in the balance-sheet which, under this Bill, will be laid before Parliament. The detail of the profit and loss Recount which leads up to that balance of profit or loss is a very different thing, however. Personally I do not see, off-hand, any particular objection to publication, but I am advised, and advised strongly by a very eminent chartered accountant who is connected with several of these companies, and who is the Treasury representative upon the board of one of them, that the details of the profit and loss account cannot be placed at the disposal of the public without danger to the companies publishing them. That is his opinion, and it is one which, on these matters, I naturally accept. I would like to assure the House again that my friends and I have no desire whatever to withhold essential information, and I hope the House will be satisfied by getting the profit or loss as stated in the balance-sheet, without asking for the detail of the profit and loss account.

Mr. WOOD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not wish to press his Amendment. As I have already said, the Clause that I have moved was
the result of rather long deliberations and a mutual give-and-take by hon. Members opposite who, in Committee, wished to go a great deal further, and who only gave way on several points in which they were interested because those who represented the companies had given way on other points. Like all compromises it means that neither side got altogether what it wanted. It is impossible for me at this stage to go beyond the undertaking or the arrangement arrived at—as far as I personally am concerned. The House of Commons is obviously completely unbound, and is entirely free to take any action it likes, though I am unable to go beyond what I have said. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said he did so because he thought it was not unreasonable that companies receiving public money by way of subsidy should have applied to them a rather higher standard than is required of some who are not, in receipt of such aids. That is quite true, and that is the effect under the Clause I have moved, more especially as it has been strengthened by the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend opposite. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that there is considerably stronger treatment meted out to these companies than is extended to ordinary companies. For these reasons, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment, because if he does I shall be unable to accept it.

Mr. HOPKINSOIM: The right hon. Gentleman's appeal is very moving, but it does not move me a bit. Those with whom he was negotiating were, in the main, hon. Members of this House who have not any sort of conception as to how to read a balance-sheet or a profit and loss statement. The hon. and gallant Member who on this question puts forward the views of the companies did not give us quite a full account of the difficulties which arise when companies publish only a balance-sheet without publishing a profit and loss account. Anybody who has had to deal with these matters will agree with me in this, that it is easy to draw up a balance-sheet, and to bring in a balance transferred from profit and loss account, and yet completely to hoodwink the shareholders and the general public as to what has actually happened.
For instance, it is a very common thing when a company wishes to disguise the fact that it is making a heavy loss, wishes, for reasons of its own—for the further issue of shares—to show a profit, for it to write up its fixed assets. If it shows a profit, not by trading but by writing up the value of fixed assets, it can show that profit in the balance-sheet as profit transferred from the profit and loss account, and in doing so convey no sort of suspicion to the person who reads the balance-sheet as to what has actually happened in the affairs of the company. That is common; I have seen it done time and again; in fact, it is a common device; and it is one of those things which any reform of the Companies Acts will have to deal with very severely. I hope Members of the party who made the arrangements with the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench will bear that in mind, and will support us in dividing the House on this particular Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON: May I add one word to what has been said? It is not because I question the skill with which my hon. Friends above the Gangway have, discussed this matter that I have ventured to make this suggestion, and I am sure they will consider it, as the rest of the House will consider it, with a desire to get the best regulations made. May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that to tell any business man, or even that inferior kind of being who is principally employed in advising business men when they get into trouble, that a balance-sheet necessarily shows the result of the balance of profit-and-loss account does not carry anybody very far? The enterprises under this Bill are to get a subsidy at a particular rate for four years, a reduced subsidy for a period after that, and the whole subsidy, according to the present Bill, is to run out in 10 years' time. Two things will unquestionably arise under the administration of the Act. There will be a natural inclination on the part of those who are receiving the subsidy to show that they will never be able to make good if the subsidy is reduced. Nothing is more certain than that in three or four years' time we shall have representations of that sort made, I have no doubt, in perfectly good faith.
On the other hand, it would be very important, not only for the public, but for Members of Parliament, to be in a position themselves to judge how far such a contention is justified. It is not a question for the Minister, it is a question for the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequor does not present a Budget statement by announcing that the taxes will be so much, and telling us to take it or leave it. He has had to produce the accounts of the country in considerable detail, after we have examined the estimates and expenditure of every Government Department. I cannot see why it is improper or unreasonable to say that the profit-and-loss accounts of these companies should, in the same way, be laid on the Table of the House.
5.0 P.M.
Let me make it plain to every hon. Member that I thoroughly agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that it would be unreasonable, and, indeed, intolerable, to ask for publication of things which could possibly undermine these companies in contest with their competitors. To ask that they should publish their costings system would be quite ridiculous; everybody is entitled to do those things secretly, in the best way he can. And no sensible man would expect publications of secret processes or of marketing arrangements. I speak in the presence of men of business, who very likely know this subject very much better than I do, but I cannot see why, if it is right for the taxpayer to have the balance-sheet, it is not also right for the taxpayer to have the profit-and-loss account. A member of an ordinary private company expects to see both, and, as has already been said in the Debate, this is not the case of an ordinary private company, but we are acting in this House for the taxpayers of the country, who are being compelled, whether they like it or not, to make contributions towards these particular enterprises. I think, therefore, the least we can do is to ensure that the material which, under these Rules, the Minister secures, will be material which is available for public information, because, otherwise, we shall necessarily be left in the dark.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want, first of all, to say to my hon. Friend the
Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), who said that hon. Members on these benches who were negotiating with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter were totally incapable of reading a balance sheet, that he must not assume he is the only Member who can read a balance sheet.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I was under the impression that Members above the Gangway were not capitalists, and on that account could not be aware of the evil devices of that class.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The whole of this Debate to-day arises from the desire of the Minister to accept an Amendment from these benches to safeguard the public, hut hon. Members below the Gangway seem to have had no interest in the need for practical Measures of this sort for the safeguarding of the public until the "Report stage of the Bill. As a matter of fact we asked upstairs for a public auditor, because the balance-sheets certified by public auditors contain, not only a statement of liabilities and assets, but trade account, cash account, management expenses account, bank account, and profit-and-loss account. I would like to have as detailed a balance-sheet as that in the case of all concerns for which public money is voted, and I might tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that there is not a point raised this afternoon which has not been pressed before in our negotiations with the Minister and other parties concerned. No doubt my right hon. Friend would have been invited to join in the negotiations if his interest in the matter had been somewhat earlier. We did our best in Committee, and in the subsequent negotiations, to get the fullest amount of publicity possible, and, as we put our position quite clearly in the negotiations, if this point is forced to a Division, the Minister will not expect us to do anything less than to support an extension of publicity.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: With great deference to my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, I quite appreciate his case for the publication of a profit and loss account, but the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is for the publication of the profit and loss account, which is to be drawn up in accordance with rules
made by the Minister, and also for the publication of the explanations to be given at the request of the Minister. It seems to me, in that case, if the Minister does his duty, it is practically certain, if any information could do harm to the companies, it would be given either by a profit and loss account in such detailed form as the Minister would require, or in such explanations as he would require. Therefore, I venture to suggest, although it might be quite proper to publish a profit and loss account, it would be very dangerous, indeed, to ask for the publication of the explanations required by the Minister, and it might also be equally dangerous to require publication of such a profit and lose account as the Minister might require to be drawn up, with all the details which his rules might require.
There must be some cases in which Parliament, I will not say is incapable, but is the wrong instrument for dealing with matters of detail, owing to the publicity which must come from their dealing with them. In a case of this kind, Parliament would be entitled to require that even the most confidential information must be given to the Parliamentary representative, and I do think the House of Commons ought to be satisfied, in a case of this kind, that information, which it might be undesirable to publish, should be given to the Minister, and only to the Minister, and not to Parliament, and, therefore, to the public. Of course, if it comes to a question of reduction, or increase of subsidy, or further grant of subsidy, there you get another case altogether. Parliament then may take the matter into its own hands, and say that it cannot agree to continue, or increase, or not reduce the subsidy until it gets this information; but that does not arise at the moment. I do think the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Amendment does attempt to bring about that publicity of matters which ought to be confidential, and which the right hon. Gentleman claims no wish to make public.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: As this may be more or less a precedent for the future, we cannot start too well in laying down the lines on which public money is to be granted, and the rules and conditions under which it is to be administered. With regard to the objection raised by the last hon. Member, there is no desire
at all that confidential information should be given, and it is an extraordinary profit and loss account which is going to give away any confidential information. Profit and loss accounts, as a rule, are difficult enough to understand in ordinary, straightforward dealing, without being able to elicit from them any confidential information which some companies are so astute in withholding from their shareholders and the public. Therefore, I do submit, that where public money is being spent on this large scale, the public, as represented by the House of Commons, and not merely by the Minister, no matter how excellent the Minister may be, is entitled to the fullest information. In so far as this is, in the main, a departure from the practice of Parliament in the past, it is very desirable that we should be sure that the lines we are laying down now are sound lines in the public interest, and safeguard the rights of the public. Therefore, I do hope the Minister, on further consideration, can accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.

Sir H. FOSTER: I have been trying to think of some kind of information that could appear in an ordinary profit and loss account, to which any objection could be taken as disclosing secrets to foreign competitors, and I cannot think of one. It seems to me eminently reasonable that the profit and loss account, as well as the item transferred ultimately to the balance-sheet, and the balance-sheet should be published. It is quite true, there are a great many public companies which do not publish profit and loss accounts. I was astonished the other day, when attending a meeting of a company with a capital of £20,000,000, to find that they publish no profit and loss account to their shareholders. The answer was that the old state of things would not be permitted to-day and would be very much resented by the ordinary shareholders. If that be so in the case of an ordinary company, how much more so in the case of companies receiving subsidies out of public money. I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend, because I am sure his statement would be fair, and he did not give us the slightest reason. All he could tell us was that he was advised by somebody else, for reasons which were not disclosed, that it would not be desirable.
I say, again, it appears to be almost elementary in the case of an ordinary public company, and, therefore, ex hypothesi much more in the case of a subsidy from the State, that the profit and joss account, which would disclose no improper information or secret processes, but which would merely be a recital—not in too much detail, not such as to show, for example, the costing, which would be improper—of particulars under ordinary heads, of which I cannot conceive any honest public company would object to the publication. As to the suggestion, made more than once, that this Amendment would compel disclosures of explanations given to the Minister, I did not understand the Amendment would cover that.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Possibly I was under a misapprehension, but I did understand this Amendment to include the publication of the explanations. That is the fatal part of it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Amendment, as I moved it, was, after the words "balance sheets," to add the words "statements of profit and loss, and explanations," but if the feeling of the House is against the word "explanations" being added, I shall be willing to leave it out, so long as we make cure that we get the profit and loss account.

Sir H. FOSTER: I am glad that I have elicited that. It is an inconvenience, in matters of such importance, to be obliged to consider Amendments which do not appear on the Order Paper. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will omit the word "explanations," because I see difficulties in publishing explanations, for which a Minister might ask, and which it might be extremely undesirable to publish.

Mr. LAMB: I am rather in a difficulty. I should like the Minister to state whether the rules and regulations are to be laid on the Table of the House, because, if so, I think it would be a check upon any regulation which might be made in future, as the House of Commons itself would have the opportunity of discussing, and approving or disapproving the regulations.

Mr. STEPHEN: I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment. I do not think, in spite of what so many financial experts tell us, that there is a great deal in it. The hon. and gallant Member
suggested that, on the advice of an accountant, he felt that it would be unsatisfactory to have this Amendment included. Possibly that is due to the fact that accountants are naturally very conservative, but, so far as I can see, there is nothing in the Amendment of very great importance, especially since the right hon. Gentleman is willing to take away the explanations. There has been a lack of understanding on the part of Members below the Gangway with regard to the agreement that was come to, or the engagement that the Minister entered into in this respect, and I notice they still seem to be somewhat uncertain about it. I would like to explain that those of us above the Gangway think that every opportunity should be taken of making plain the position with regard to the expenditure of public money. The representatives of hon. Members below the Gangway evidently did not think on the Committee this was worth while, but owing to the fact that it was opposed by some of us on the Committee, the Minister felt that there was something in our objections, and he agreed to put something in the Measure that would possibly meet the case. We did not agree to the specific words suggested by the Minister or to the specific terms in which it was expressed, but we got a promise that he would try and met us. I believe in this Clause that the Minister is trying to meet us, but I ask the Government to accept the Amendment in addition, because it will not make any material difference to them.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I am sure we all appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I happened to be on the Committee when the original Clause was moved, and the Minister immediately rose, and after his promise the Clause was withdrawn. Negotiations have taken

place between the two Front Benches on the Clause we are considering, but there are other interests concerned. We have to consider the interests of the public and the taxpayer, and these interests have not been consulted by the Minister. We have our freedom of action here this afternoon. May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend above the Gangway to how far we have travelled from the original Amendment.

The accounts of any undertaking qualified to receive the subsidy under the provisions of this Bill have to be audited each year by a public auditor and laid before Parliament. In the Committee upstairs we pleaded, in the first place, for full publicity of all the accounts; and, secondly, that these accounts should be audited by a public auditor. Consequently we are now met with a small remnant of the original Amendment which was moved upstairs by my hon. Friend above the Gangway. As the House is being asked to find large sums of money for this particular industry, I think the taxpayers have the right to know how their money is being spent year by year. I will not submit any further arguments now, but I hope the Minister will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I point out that the word "explanations" is to be left out.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will move that the last two words be omitted.

Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "and explanation."—[Mr. Runciman.]

Question put, "That the words, 'and statements of profit and loss' be there inserted in the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes. 1st: Noes, 269.

Gretton, Colonel John
MacLaren, Andrew
Snell, Harry


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Groves, T.
March, S.
Stamford, T. W.


Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Mitchell, E, Rosslyn (Paisley)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hall, F. (York W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murnln, H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Harney, E. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, E.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Owen, Major G.
Tinker. John Joseph


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Palin, John Henry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Warne, G. H.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remnant, Sir James
Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Riley, Ben
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rltson, J.
Welsh, J. C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wignail, James


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Windsor, Walter


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wright, W.


Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lowth, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)



Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr.


Mackinder, W.
Smith. Rennle (Penistone)
Trevelyan Thomson,

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Jacob, A. E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Jephcott, A. R.
Oakley. T.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pease, William Edwin
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pennefather, Sir John
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord, C.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Penny, Frederick George
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lamb, J. Q.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Philipson, Mabel
Templeton, W. P.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pielou, D. P
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Loder, J. de V.
Pilcher, G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Looker, Herbert William
Power. Sir John Cecil
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Croydon,S.)


Lougher, L.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Price, Major C. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Luce, Major-Gen Sir Richard Harman
Raine, W.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Maclntyre, Ian
Rentoul, G. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McLean, Major A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watson, Rt. Hon, W. (Carlisle)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watts, Dr. T.


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
wells, S. R.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc, Stretford)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ropner, Major L.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Mailer, R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Savery, S. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Scott, Sir Leslie (Llverp'l, Exchange)
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Maj. (Renfrew, W)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wood. E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Colonel J. C. T.
Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)
Worthington-Evans, at. Hon. Sir L.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Skelton, A. N.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Murchison, C. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon



Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nelson, Sir Frank
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas


Neville, R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hacking.

Proposed Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next new Clause (Bent.,? not to be raised in consequence of Act), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), is outside the scope of the Bill, and, consequently, is not in order.

CLAUSE 1.—(Bate and conditions of payment of (subsidy).

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to insert a new Subsection—
(2) Upon the termination of such period of ten years there shall be allocated to the Treasury from the assets of any undertaking engaged in the manufacture of sugar or molasses, in respect of which a subsidy has been paid under the provisions of this Section, shares equal to fifty per cent. of the total amount of the subsidy paid, such shares to rank for dividend after the payment of five per cent. on the ordinary shares, and the Treasury shall be allocated one representative on the board of directors of such undertaking.
This Amendment brings before the House a very important matter of
principle. We are here embarking on a new experiment, and are expending large sums in support of one particular industry. We on this side of the House are not complaining that the State should take a part in experiments with regard to industry, but we do say that, where public money is expended in helping private enterprise, there should be some residuary interest retained for the community. This principle was adopted when monopolies in the past were given to tramway undertakings, electricity undertakings, and similar public undertakings. We have here rather a different departure. We have a huge subsidy granted for ten years to the sugar industry. We all hope that the sugar industry is going to be successful, but we none of us know what is going to be the result of this subsidy as regards the financial affairs of these sugar undertakings. We do not know whether they' are going to make large profits, or small profits, or losses. This Amendment is designed to meet any case, whether the industry is successful or whether it is
unsuccessful. We propose that, after 10 years, a certain amount of assets in these companies should be put into the hands of the State, and that, after a certain dividend has been declared, 50 per cent. of the total amount of subsidy paid should rank for dividend with the capital put up for these companies.
As I have indicated, we are here indulging in a very speculative undertaking. No one knows what is going to be the future of the sugar industry. No one can forecast sugar prices. A Royal Commission is now going into the question of food prices, and we gather that many millionaires have become such by making losses over a long succession of years. We do not know that we may not have sugar millionaires in this industry, who will make losses all the time; or it may be that they will make profits, and then, I suppose, they will be multimillionaires. We cannot, however, foretell how sugar prices are likely to move m the next 10 years. Anything that deals with something that has to be grown is affected by climatic conditions. We do not know what may happen to the sugar-producing areas of the world. We do not know what new uses may be found for sugar; we do not know whether, 10 years hence, there will be a sugar shortage or a sugar surplus.
I want to make provision in caw this proposition, which is being started by State money, turns out to be very successful. We are giving this guarantee to the company for 10 years, which will give them, time to get on their legs. In this Amendment we are proposing to allow them 5 per cent. even after the 10 years, and it is only after they have already had a 5 per cent. dividend that we ask that the community should come in and share in the profits, of the industry. I do not think that this is an unreasonable request. I do not think it can be said to upset the bargain that has been made with the people who have put up their money for this industry. A point that is generally put forward against any variation of the terms of this Bill is that people have been induced to put their money into this industry in the hope of making profits, and that they have been induced to do so by the 10 years' subsidy. We are told that the real object of this Measure is to help British agriculture and to help the
country, and we are also told that capitalists are eminently patriotic. I want to see whether their patriotism is something more than a sort of general word of patriotism. I want to see whether it is a 10 per cent. patriotism, or a 5 per cent. patriotism, or what sort of per cent. patriotism it is. I am only suggesting that they should be patriotic after they have got 5 per cent., so I do not think we are making too large a demand upon them in that way.
We also suggest that, after the 10-year period, there should be one representative of the State on the board of directors of each of these undertakings. We have already had a precedent, in the case of other semi-State undertakings, for having some State representation on the board of management, and I certainly think that, if the taxpayers are making the sacrifice they are making for the sake of this industry, we should have a guarantee that the industry is going to be carried on in the interests of the country, and not in what are, possibly, the narrower interests of the shareholders, because it is quite possible to develop this industry in the interest of the country or in the interest of the shareholders without those two interests coinciding. That is found to be the case very often, especially in any dealings with foodstuffs. I do not think it can be said that we are making an unreasonable demand in asking that the State should come in after this 10-year period. I do not suggest that I should tie myself down absolutely to the figures in the Amendment: I am prepared to accept a reasonable compromise on the matter; but I think the Amendment does enshrine a valuable principle.
It may be said that the community are-going to get an advantage, in return for the subsidy, in the prosperous state of agriculture and in the great value of a new industry to the country. I admit that we all hope that we are going to have those advantages, but I do not see why, because we are going to have those advantages, we should forego the possibility of recouping ourselves for our expenditure in setting up this industry. The one does not rule out the other, nor is it necessary, to my mind, in order to have a new business that is going to be an advantage to this country, that we should have to pay a very high price to the
capitalists who put their money into it. After all, this may be the first of a series of Statutes of this nature, because I understand that, with the exception, possibly, of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), practically all the House has now departed from the old laissez faire. attitude, and we do not know what may not come up in this Parliament or the next. If we are going to have any of these further subsidies, or any more of what I should call attempts to get State action in industry in the wrong way, let us lay down, right away from the start, the principle that we are not going to give this assistance to private enterprise in an industry without retaining for the community some interest in, some advantage from, and some control over the industry.

Mr. BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Amendment has already been reduced as compared with the Amendment we proposed in Committee, and I sincerely hope that in its reduced form the Minister will be able to accept it. In the first place, the Amendment deals with the necessity for the State sharing in the asset created, and I think it is essential to remind the House that no asset would be created without the financial assistance guaranteed through the subsidy. The promoters of the sugar beer industry in this country have quite frankly admitted that they cannot establish the business, they cannot erect these factories, they cannot create an asset that will yield them profits and dividends, without this subsidy from the community. If that be the case, surely it is only reasonable and fair that the community should share in the assets which itself it creates. In Committee the Amendment put forward the proposition that the State's share of the assets should be equal to the total subsidy paid. We have now reduced that to 50 per cent. of the total amount. The Amendment next deals with the dividends that this asset in the form of shares earns, and here, again, I think we have erred on the side of generosity, because we permit the private shareholders to have the first claim on the dividend-earning capacity of the undertaking up to 5 per cent., and the shares that ultimately, if this Amendment
is conceded, will be allocated to the Treasury, will only take their proportion of profit after the private shares have taken the first 5 per cent. The Amendment does not go anything like as far as I personally should wish to see, and the reasonableness of the claim will, I hope, enable the Minister to meet us.
The final point in the Amendment is that the Treasury should have some representation on the boards of directors of the undertakings which benefit from this subsidy. I submit that that is essentially a necessary precaution. This industry will be created as a result of a very generous subsidy from the State. It cannot be separated, even at the end of 10 years, I venture so suggest, from some reaction in various ways on governmental policy. The natural demand of this industry will be always to retain, for instance, the present Customs Duty on sugar; and I also consider that any industry which is created by a subsidy will have the natural urge and tendency to demand a continuation of that subsidy at the end of the 10 years laid down in this Bill. One of the only ways in which you can test the equity of any subsequent demand from this industry, either for a retention of the subsidy as laid down in the Bill or for the retention of any remission of the Excise Duty on sugar, is by the Treasury having some nominated representative on the board of directors, who will be able to understand the policy of the control, who will be able to know whether that policy has been operated to its fullest business efficiency in the period laid down in the Bill, and who will be able to indicate to the Treasury the policy that will be pursued. From these three points of view I consider that this provision is essential, reasonable, and necessary if the interests of the taxpayer are to be safeguarded.

Mr. WOOD: I listened with great attention to the arguments which have been advanced by the Mover and Seconder, and it is, as they said, a subject which occupied a good deal of the Committee's attention during its deliberations. I, of course, appreciate the fact that hon. Members opposite have reduced their demands by 50 per cent. I think, since we considered it upstairs. That is a very encouraging sign of progress on which I should like to congratulate them, and to hope that the-
next few days may be as prolific of progress as the last, because it is evident that if they can continue to make such satisfactory progress, the gulf which at present divides us will shortly disappear, and we shall be in complete harmony. That will prepare the Committee for the intimation that it is not possible for the Government to accept the Amendment even in the modified form in which it is now moved, but I think it would be discourteous to those who support it if I did not try to give some reasons why I have to oppose that negative to their suggestion. Reading the Amendment, I do not think anyone can fail to be struck by what appears to be almost a confusion of thought between capital and revenue. The proposal is that at the end of the period of 10 years, there shall be allocated to the Treasury, representing the taxpayers, a number of shares equivalent to 50 per cent. of the money which has been given to the factory by way of subsidy. In other words, hon. Members opposite seem to be seeking to estimate the amount of the capital claim which the Treasury in their judgment may make in relation to the revenue which has gone through the hands of the factory in the preceding 10 years. Those two things have no kind of relation the one to the other.
We have discussed over and over again what the subsidy is designed to do. The subsidy is in the strictest sense of the word current revenue of the company. It is given to them by the wisdom of the State to achieve perfectly definite objects. Those objects are to ensure that farmers will grow this crop. They are tied down to pay the farmer a minimum price to induce him to grow it, and a subsidy is paid designed to enable the factories to get over the early stage of their establishment during which they may be expected to be gradually establishing themselves on a basis of knowledge and experience equivalent to their principal Continental competitors. Therefore to suggest that that subsidy, which is revenue in the sense that it is only passing through the company's hands and is being disbursed immediately to someone else, is to be treated as capital, and is to furnish a measure by which the Treasury may proceed in 10 years to assess its claim, is to confuse two unconnected and irrelevant groups of things. That is my
first objection to the Amendment. My second objection I do not develop, but it is one that hon. Members can develop themselves. The Mover of the Amendment also referred to it. It is a great fallacy—and I suspect it is a fallacy which is partly responsible for the just that divides me from hon. Members opposite on this matter—to suppose that the State gets nothing back by this subsidy except by some such direct financial transaction as the Amendment suggests The State, as I see it, in the whole matter is pursuing a perfectly straightforward business arrangement. Those who represented the State appraised and weighed up for themselves what they were prepared to pay in order to secure results which they thought worthy of effort. They arrived at a certain figure and the results they sought to secure were a great national purpose of great value. Therefore even without any financial transaction such as is suggested here, the House would be wrong if it supposed the State was going to get no result or reward or return.
Lastly, I should like to put this to hon. Members whose minds, perhaps, are not already entirely made up. This participation which is suggested in the Amendment is either going to have a value or it is not. If it is not going to have a value, obviously, it is not worth doing from the hon. Member's point of view. If it is going to have a value it is not less obvious that the companies must begin at once to create a reserve in some form out of which they will be able to meet those obligations which will come upon them in 1934. In other words what you are doing by this Amendment is to lay on the companies from this day henceforth a definite new obligation of a very onerous character, because only by accepting that obligation can they place themselves in a position to meet the stipulation you seek to incorporate in the Bill by the Amendment. If that were so, by what reason and by what law of equity does the Mover of the Amendment suggest that by it you are in no way departing from the agreement, the undertaking, and the bargain which was made with these people who have put up their money, and in putting up their money have gone into the factory business, on the strength of the State inducement? If they had known that you were going to make this
new obligation on them, do you suppose you would have got them to agree to raise money and go into the sugar business on the terms we are incorporating in the Bill'? Of course, you would not and everybody knows it.
If you had suggested this stipulation to them you would have had to raise your terms in order to offer an equivalent inducement to that which you incorporated in the bargain that right hon. Gentlemen opposite made and on the strength of which they had induced men to invest their money in this enterprise. It is, therefore, to my mind quite clear that not only would it be a breach of faith at this stage to go back on the agreement on which money has been supplied, but the instant you did it, you would so much have depreciated the inducement that you gave the people that you would find their whole enterprise arrested and checked, and cut off short, and unless and until Parliament was prepared to reconsider the terms of the inducement, they would find no development and no enterprise in this business that Parliament has tried to stimulate. Therefore it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment. Of course, I appreciate the intellectual doctrines and motives which have prompted hon. Members opposite to move it. I do not agree with them, as they will probably have gathered, and I hope on second thoughts, in order to preserve the harmony which has entirely characterised our discussion, they will see their way, after having had such discussion as they think necessary, to spare the House the necessity of proceeding to a Division.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret in many ways that the right hon. Gentleman has not met us on any point in this Amendment. Certainly we are obliged to press it to a Division, because we feel that it raises a principle of very great and growing importance in the State. Let me make it perfectly plain in the first place on the actual phraseology of the Amendment itself, that we on this side do not necessarily bind ourselves to its precise terms. I entirely agree with the Minister if he suggest that, in the event of the House of Commons agreeing to this principle, probably some better method might be found of carrying it out. I do not dispute that in the least, but we have to remember that we have arrived rather
late in the day in this discussion when in fact it has been agreed to give a subsidy, and when we are only trying now to safeguard an important principle, namely, that the community shall have some right in the capital asset which the subsidy and the credit of the community sought to create. During the whole of our discussion upstairs, and I think during the discussion on the Second Reading, that principle was never really challenged in any part of this Chamber. You never attacked the argument that you could not give public money without being perfectly certain that you were going to have some right in what you had helped to build up. Sc that I do not worry very much at the moment about the precise terms of the Amendment, if we make it perfectly clear that we are after what we believe to be an important principle.
6.0 P.M.
In the second place, the Minister opposes the proposal because he argues that we are in fact getting a definite benefit for the State in the creation of this new industry, and he seems to suggest that we on our side hold the view that we are not getting a benefit if that kind. On that point, I think, he has altogether misunderstood our argument, or we may not have put it clearly, but we have always said, quite candidly, those of us who have supported the Bill, that you are going to help create a new industry in the country, and many of us were driven, with some reluctance, to submit to the idea of a subsidy simply because we considered that expenditure of money better than the giving of an unemployed donation, which did not create any capital asset at all. That was the plain choice that we put to ourselves, and, accordingly, we got over the difficulty of a subsidy, but we hold on to the importance of safeguarding the principle that I am discussing. The Minister says we are going to get the benefit of this extended industry. The very same argument would apply to any other enterprise in the State. In point of fact in taxation, directly and indirectly, we are giving a great many subsidies, and unfortunately we rarely have a public asset in respect of that kind of subsidy, although I do not suppose one could be very long at the Treasury without coming to a conclusion that the time has come to review that class of legislation. We do at the same time confer a very real benefit upon the people
who are going to get this £3,000,000, or whatever it may be. We are certainly going to give them a public utility return at the very lowest, and probably something more, and we are doing all that at the expense of people who are struggling along under a load of £800,000,000 per annum of taxation at present. I do not think for a single minute that the Minister can press unduly that argument of gain or benefit to the State. We recognise that, and we merely ask that the taxpayers shall participate in the benefit in some definite and ascertained way.
The third point which the Minister argued against this Clause, is that our proposal involves a breach of agreement with the people who have put up money for these beet sugar factories, and have supported the industry in other ways up to the present stage. There can be no validity in that argument, because all that was on the Order Paper when we left office, at that tragic moment in our rational history, was a Financial Resolution which indicated the subsidy which we were going to give to this new industry, but did not specify the terms of the Bill which was to be introduced. It was a Resolution which the House of Commons was perfectly free to amend in any direction it pleased. There is no breach of agreement, because all that was on the Paper was the Financial Resolution.
That Financial Resolution was on the Paper for a considerable number of days, and before and during that time, no doubt, capital was being subscribed and arrangements made either to start or to extend this industry. Every man who issued a prospectus in respect of beet sugar, and everybody who had any connection with it, knew perfectly well that there remained to the House of Commons, and must remain to the House of Commons, perfect freedom to turn down the Bill if it so pleased, and certainly perfect freedom to give the subsidy under such conditions of public protection as this House might decide to enforce. Therefore, there can be no breach of agreement from the point of view that the Minister has suggested, because, strictly speaking, anybody who subscribed capital to these undertakings could have no definite notion until the Measure is on the
Statute Book, which will be a month or so hence.
I have tried to cover as briefly as possible the three points which have been argued by my right hon. Friend in opposition to our proposal, but there remains one large consideration with which I will deal in a sentence or two. In reality, we are giving very much more to this industry, if we really knew it, than the direct subsidy which is embodied in this Bill. Many of these beet sugar factories are coming forward and asking for guarantees under the Trade Facilities Acts in respect of the capital expenditure they are undertaking, and the employment they hope to find. I make no complaint about that. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but the practical effect of that is that they will be able to raise money for the capital expenditure, with the guarantee, on rather easier terms than they could raise it without the guarantee, and I am not sure that the existence of this Bill, with its subsidy, will not also help them in the same direction.
You have therefore, to add to the immediate subsidy you are giving, the benefit you may confer upon them under the Trade Facilities Acts, and if you add these two things together you will find that you have done a very great deal for one new and, no doubt, important industry. In respect of that, you have absolutely nothing to show as the property of the taxpayer, save the general benefit of work which flows from industry, which applies equally to any other enterprise in this country which has not the benefit of £3,000,000 subsidy under an Act of Parliament. I know the difficulty that is in my right hon. Friend's mind. He argues with great kindness and geniality, which we all recognise, but in effect his last sentence is this: "I do not want public ownership or Socialism by this route." Very well, then do not take public money in this way. If you are going to take public money to the tune of £3,000,000 or more under this Bill, do let us be able to look the taxpayers in the face and say that we have some actual capital asset, having regard to the fact that we are giving the fullest protection during the 10 years subsidy period to this new industry.
There is a frightful amount of misconception about public ownership and Socialism. I say with perfect candour,
that we are not entitled to use public money, and to go on using public money in such a way, without making this perfectly plain, that this is only one application of a much wider policy of the State. We are committed already to £70,000,000 of guarantees and contingent liabilities under the Trade Facilities Acts. We have given £5,000,000 to the Colonies for schemes of development in which we have no capital right of any kind. We are going on doing that, and we arc doing it at a time when our debt is £7,700,000,000 and our annual taxation is £800,000,000. I do appeal to the House to support the Amendment.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The form of the Amendment seems to be open to considerable criticism, yet it seems to me that it has a sound principle behind it. We are giving preferential treatment to one selected industry whose purpose is to build up a profitable business in this country where one does not exist at the present time. Public money is being used and public credit is being advanced for this particular purpose, and it seems to me to be not unreasonable that the public if there are profits should have a share in that to which they have so largely contributed. I cannot see any very dangerous doctrine of Socialism or anything subversive of sound government or sound financial business in that proposition. Surely, partners in business and those who put up capital are entitled to a return on that which they have subscribed. Surely, because the capitalist in this case happens to be the State there is no reason why it should be deprived of that return which it would have got if it had subscribed the money in a private capacity. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
Why should one industry have all this advantage which it is honed will accrue, at the expense of other industries? The rest of the industries in the country are to contribute through taxation to the subsidising of this particular industry, and if the industry is going to make large profits, it is perfectly sound from the business point of view and from the point of view of equity, and the national point of view, that the State should have a share in the profit It is only if profits are made. It is only after a considerable percentage has been paid on the share
capital, before anything can be allowed to the public. The method of ascertaining the share seems to me somewhat ingenious, if not fantastic. There is a confusion of actual values and revenues, out the method of calculating the amount is perhaps only a minor matter, because it is the principle which is at stake. When the Minister was speaking one felt certain qualms in voting for the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman was correct when he said that there would be a breach of bargain if the Amendment were carried. I have been reassured by what has been said by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is no breach of any bargain made between f-he Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Government, and those interested in the provision of sugar-beet factories.
There can be no breach, if we look at the Financial Resolution that was put on the Paper. Beyond that, I take it that there was no undertaking in any private negotiations between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and those interested in sugar beet which would lead them by any chance to regard this proposal as a breach of agreement. Whatever proposals are made, the House of Commons, as the trustee of the public purse, has the last and final word, and is entitled to Jay down conditions. Therefore, in so far as We are assured that there is no possibility of any breach of a bargain that was made by the late Government, I shall be glad to support the principle underlying the Amendment, which I take to mean that where public money is expended in private enterprise, and profits accrue, the public are entitled to a share of the profits. It is important when we are launching out into newer fields, and when public money is being given and will be still more largely subscribed towards private enterprise in one form or another, that we should at the very outset safeguard the public and see that its interests are protected, and that it shall have a share in any profits which through its agency may be built up.

Mr. MACKINDER: I support the Amendment for the important reason that the Minister in refusing it is laying down the principle that the British people, through the British Government, can advance money up to almost any amount and secure absolutely no return for it and no opportunity for having con-
trol as to how that money shall be spent. The sugar beet industry is one of the most important experiments that this country could undertake. It is an experiment which may land us, if it is successful, into much more important excursions in connection with other industries. I believe that with State assistance any undertaking can be made a financial success. That is an opinion which I hold, rightly or wrongly. I have a feeling that if the sugar beet industry does turn out to be as successful, as we hope it will be, there may be an opportunity for other new industries to start with prospects of a great measure of success, with support from the Government, which may react in favour of the British people as a whole. It is not only an investment on the part of the shareholders, but on behalf of the British public.
The Minister tried to tell us what the State would get back as a result of the money invested. I was not quite clear what ho said we should get back. I do not know whether we shall get cheaper sugar; I do not think we shall. I do not know whether we are going to get an illimitable amount of sugar. I cannot see what benefit the public is going to get back as a result of putting this money into the enterprise. The fact remains, that several millions of money will have been invested by the British public in a new concern, and no opportunity is going to be given for the public to get anything back for the money which is being invested. If this scheme proves successful, I say from my point of view and that of my friends that we shall be prepared to introduce new schemes which will not only provide an opportunity for work, but an opportunity for trade extension in this country, which we think as much about as do hon. Members on the other side. I want this scheme to be a success, but I want the results of the success to come back not only to the gentlemen who invest their money in the way of shares but I want some of the benefit to come back to the British people who are, so to speak, investing some of the small coppers which otherwise they might get in the way of relieved taxation.
One point which the Minister has not even attempted to answer is the suggestion that the Treasury should be allocated one representative on the Board of Directors of this undertaking.
Not a single hon. Member on the other side of the House would think of investing his money in any concern to the tune of millions of pounds and not expect to have a representative to help in deciding how that undertaking should be conducted. At least, it is due to the House that the Minister shall explain the reason for ignoring the latter part of this Amendment, and let us know exactly what is the attitude of the Government on this matter. I hope that the mover of this Amendment will press t to a Division, because T believe that we should have some adequate return, especially from this new infant industry, and, if the State is to provide such a large part of the capital, it should have direct representation on the directorate and be entitled to a share of the profits after a certain time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that the House will give this question a little more consideration before turning down the Amendment. This is no minor Amendment. It is a question of enormous importance to the whole future of the country. If we can indicate now that any future assistance from the State will be coupled with the certainty of Government control over the industries subsidised, and at the same time with a certain return to the taxpayers in the shape of a contribution to revenue in return for the subsidies, then not only shall we have established a very sound principle, but, as the hon. Member has said, we shall make it possible to go further. This Amendment applies to a particular industry, which is the first industry that has been subsidised to any large extent by the Government. It refers to the sugar industry. All over the Continent of Europe the beet sugar industry in the past has been subsidised by Governments, and we have seen in every one of these countries enormous wealth created by the beet sugar refineries. We have the name of Lebaudy, which is known all over the world, the Emperor of Sahara, who made millions through the assistance which was given by the French Government to that industry.
It seems that most hon. Members think this business which we are assisting to establish will be a failure, or will have great difficulty in paying its way, even with the subsidy, and that when the subsidy ceases there will be no profits to
be made. That may be the case, but it has not been the experience in other countries. We do know that one particularly rich man is putting his money into this thing, and he counts on making the sugar refining industry in this country a great success. He is putting millions into it, though no doubt he will get a Government guarantee before the money goes into it. If it be possible therefore that this sugar industry may develop into a gigantic financial success, as hon. Members contemplate in time, then, when such a gigantic success as that shall be built up by the advancing of £3,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, we shall have no control over that enormous monopoly, and at the same time no share in the enormous dividends paid. In such a case surely we should be criminal to throw away the chance of having something to say in the business.
Great play has been made with the terms of the Amendment, but the terms of the Amendment are of no importance. The important point is, first to have control over the management of this concern through representation on the Board of Directors—and against that proposal no arguments have been advanced—and second, that the State shall be in the position of a deferred shareholder, and that, after a certain rate of interest has been paid on the capital, the State shall come in as a deferred shareholder and take the profits. If there be a loss it has to be borne by the State, but if there be a profit over and above a certain reasonable interest—I do not say that it is certain that there will be—we should be criminal to throw it away. The Minister of Agriculture talked a great deal about the advance which we have made on this side of the House since the question was debated in Committee, and said that we had reduced our demands from 100 per cent. of the money advanced to 50 per cent. He knows as well as anybody else that it does not matter whether it is a 300 or 50 or 1 per cent., and that if you are going to raise capital and you get a certain definite income and the State gets all profits above that income, it does not matter about the nominal value you attach to the deferred shares. The principle is that anything over a certain amount shall go to the State.
Against that no argument has been advanced. The people who advance their money are safe. They will get their fixed rate of interest. The public on the other hand will get some security against the price of sugar being unreasonably raised in times of scarcity by this monopoly, and will also get a reasonable share in any prosperity to which it may attain. I hope that hon. Members will not look on this question as a matter of Socialism against individualism. It is a common-sense business proposition. No man, on his own initiative, would put these enormous sums into any business without asking either for the right to control it or some reasonable share in the profits made. We have no right to deal with the taxpayers' money in a different way from our own. We are trustees for the taxpayers of this country. To throw away the possibility of having a substantial return, to throw away all control, as an abstract demonstration against having anything to do with State control, is derogatory of our duty as trustees for the money of the public.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am somewhat struck with the attitude of hon. Members opposite with regard to this question. I would not subsidise at all except the State got something in return. This is a case in which the much-vaunted private enterprise finds itself entirely at a loss, and while hon. Gentlemen opposite criticise us tremendously for wanting to utilise the resources of the State in the public interest they are not averse to calling on the State to invest sums of money to assist private enterprise to do what otherwise it would fail to do. I was astonished at the attitude taken by the Minister with regard to this question of finance and his sub-division of the moneys into revenue and capital. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from this Front Bench a moment or two ago that the total amount of money likely to be subscribed under the subsidy may run to about £3,000,000. I should be interested to know that the amount of private capital proposed to be put up is £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 so far as the immediate future is concerned. Assuming that the amount of capital subscribed is £3,000,000, and assuming that the full subsidy will be paid over to the extent of another £3,000,000, why should the Minister attempt to divide this £6,000,000
into two watertight compartments, and say that £3,000,000 is for buildings and machinery, and that it is capital which would be entirely lost unless the State subscribed £3,000,000 more, which is to pay no return whatever so far as the State is concerned. If you like you may turn it round and say that the £3,000,000 is capital subscribed by the State, and that the £3,000,000 subscribed by private enterprise cannot expect a revenue. There is no sense in sub-dividing it.
It comes to this, that the whole £6,000,000 is capital. £3,000,000 for buildings and machinery, and £3,000,000 as the cost of establishing the business, and the State has to provide £3,000,000 and is to get no return for it except these vague returns of which the Minister has spoken. That does not seem to me to be a business proposition, and, Socialist as I am, I should refuse to assist private enterprise in this particular way with State money unless it is prepared to recognise the public subscription by giving the State a share or control in the undertaking. I agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend. Here is a big business that may become a vast monopoly, and we have seen enough of the operations of monopolies to want to avoid the establishment of further monopolies by all means in our power. If there is to be a monopoly, I believe in a monopoly in the public interest and not in the interest of private individuals. So far as my economic theories are concerned, I do not think that I need apologise for them, but if I were an individualist and believed in private enterprise I would not come to this House pleading for the money of the State and then attack the Socialist principle which I was invoking for my own assistance so far as this particular business was concerned. I would endeavour, as far as possible, to stick by what I professed, and I am amazed that hon. Gentlemen who come here and denounce us in this House for attempting to establish the principle of the utilisation of public powers for the public good, should also come here to invoke these public powers in the interest of a handful of men who think that by the utilisation of State funds they can obtain the means of establishing a great monopoly from which they expect to reap a rich harvest for themselves.

Mr. CLYNES: rose—

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: On a point of Order. May I ask if this Amendment is in order without a Money Resolution to support it? It is an Amendment which proposes that, after a certain lapse of time, certain companies are to pay certain moneys to the State. I submit that this Amendment is not in order without a Money Resolution to support it.

Mr. TAYLOR: This is money to come.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Member's suggestion be that this is a taxing proposal, the point is one which should have been submitted to me at the beginning of this Debate. I had not considered it from that point of view, and I do not feel that I ought at this moment to withdraw the matter from the House, when it is about to come to a decision.

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: Is it not proposing, it is true after the lapse of 10 years, to tax these particular companies if they show profits, and profits must represent money?

Mr. WALLHEAD: rose —

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a point of order which was addressed to me. I must say that the point which has been raised may have something in it, but it should have been raised at an earlier moment in this discussion. I could then have dealt with it. I have doubts about the matter, and I think that the doubt should be given in favour of the Amendment. I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment from the House, at a moment when the House is about to come to a decision on the matter.

Mr. DUNCAN: May I ask your guidance on another point? Is it not within the competence of the House to lay down a condition in a matter of this kind, where the credit or money of the State is used to create private enterprise?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I have decided to allow the Amendment, I need not follow that argument.

Mr. CLYNES: I am sorry that I did not bear the speech of the Minister of Agriculture against the Amendment earlier in the Debate. There has been a succession of speakers in favour of the
Amendment, and a sustained and solid silence on the part of hon. Members opposite. No doubt hon. Members opposite are relying for victory on the weight of numbers when they go into the. Lobby. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech did not touch at all upon one point in the Amendment. I want to direct his attention to that point and to submit that it deserves some answer. We have argued against what might be termed the financial part of this Bill, and have contended that after a 5 per cent. dividend is paid to those who have their money invested an apportionment of shares shall accrue to the State. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has commented upon, if he has not answered, that part of the case, but he has said nothing as to securing for the State some degree of representation in the conduct of these great undertakings. The Amendment specifically asks for such representation on the Board of Directors. I submit that among the right hon. Gentleman's first duties as a Minister of the Crown is the safeguarding of the State's interests in relation to public money, and that unless he does meet this demand with some argument, he is deliberately evading a Parliamentary service. Accordingly, I ask that he should give to the House, before the Division is taken, some reply to that part of the Amendment.

Mr. WOOD: It is only by leave of the House that I can speak again. I owe the House an apology for not having, in my earlier observations, directed my attention to that point of the Amendment. My attention was mainly concentrated on the other and larger issue raised by the Amendment. I do not now wish to delay the House in coming to a decision on the point. In reply to what the right hon.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[6.38 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clowes, S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Grundy, T. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Connolly, M.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Cove, W. G.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barnes, A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barr, J.
Duncan, C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Batey, Joseph
Dunnico, H.
Hastings. Sir Patrick


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Buchanan, G.
Greenall, T.
Hirst, G. H.


Cape, Thomas
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Charleton. H. C.
Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Gentleman has said, perhaps I may quite shortly indicate one reason which in my mind is effective against assenting to that part of the Amendment. I think that the Amendment would have been not only intelligible, but would have had more force behind it, if it had been directed to securing representation of the Treasury on the Boards of businesses to which the Government and the taxpayer had a definite capital commitment. That is a procedure which is very often followed under the Trade Facilities Act. But this case is very different. There is no capital commitment for the taxpayer. All that he is invited to do is to pay by results to factories whose results enable them to claim payment. From the point of view of the State and from the strict financial standpoint it is evident that the State is only interested in the question whether the factories pay or not from the point of view of the success or failure of the main purpose for which this policy is introduced. That is to say, if the factories fail, the State obviously saves money directly. If the factories succeed the State has to spend more money. Therefore, unless it be suggested that the presence of the Treasury representation would make the management of the factories more efficient, I cannot think that there is any strong argument for the inclusion of a Treasury representative on these Boards, as there might be if the State had definitely sunk or found the money for the establishment of the enterprise. That, therefore, is my reply to that part of the Amendment, and I regret that for these reasons I am unable to alter the advice which I gave to the House earlier.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 290.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Mlddlesbro. W.)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ritson, J.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kennedy, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Varley, Frank B.


Lansbury, George
Rose, Frank H.
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lee, F.
Scurr, John
Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lowth, T.
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Mackinder, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, J. C.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


March, S.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wignall, James


Maxton, James
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Montague, Frederick
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Murnin, H.
Snell, Harry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Oliver, George Harold
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Palin, John Henry
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Paling, w.
Stephen, Campbell
Wright, W.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.



Ponsonby, Arthur
Taylor, R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Potts, John S
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles




Edwards.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perring, William George
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green;
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Loder. J. de V.
Philipson, Mabel
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Looker, Herbert William
Plelou. D. P.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Pilcher, G.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lougher, L.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Price, Major C. W. M.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lumley, L, R.
Raine, W.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Templeton, W. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Maclntyre, Ian
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McLean, Major A.
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thomson. Sir W. Mitchell (Croydon, S.)


Macmillan Captain H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Remnant, Sir James
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rentoul. G. S.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ropner, Major L.
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ruggles-Brise. Major E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Margesson, Captain D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Meller, R. J.
Rye, F. G.
Watts, Or. T.


Merriman, F. B.
Salmon, Major I.
Wells, S. R.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds. Central)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Wise. Sir Fredric


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wolmer, Viscount


Neville, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Womersley, W. J.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simms, Or. John M. (Co. Down)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Quean's Univ., Belfst.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Nuttall, Ellis
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Oakley, T.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir Klngsley (Woolwich, W.).


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith. R.W. (Aberd'n* Kinc'dine. C.)
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Owen, Mafor G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Pease. William Edwin
Smithers, Waldron



pennefather. Sir John
somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Penny, Frederick George
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sprat, Sir Alexander
Hacking.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment in (he name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), to leave out paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1), is out of order, because it involves an increased charge.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, at the end, to insert the words
including the cost of any portion of the manufacture of the said plant or machinery which can be more efficiently carried out in the factory than before delivery.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I understand that the previous Amendment has been ruled out of order. Those Members who are on the Back Bench did not hear the reason for declaring it out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: The reason is that the removal of paragraph (b) would enable, or might enable, more people to come in, and claim the subsidy. Therefore it increases the charge upon the Exchequer, which cannot be done on the Report stage of the Bill.

Sir D. NEWTON: It is quite possible that a better form of words might be found to give expression to this proposal than those which I have used in this Amendment. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that the 75 per cent. mentioned in paragraph (b) shall be fairly and properly assessed. If this Clause in its present form is interpreted literally, it might prove to be the case that no adequate account would be taken of machinery, which was for convenience or economy erected in the factory itself, instead of being delivered into the factory complete. At the same time, this would be an integral and necessary part of the plant as a whole. If the Clause does not take into account the value of the necessary pipes and joints and communications which may be required to make the machinery and plant effective, I suggest there is grave danger of doing damage to the new factories, and there is danger of the factories being unable to obtain the amount of machinery which they may require front outside sources.
The primary purpose of this Bill is to establish sugar factories on the most up-to-date and scientific principles, and to help the distressed industry of agriculture by providing this new business. It is essential that those factories should be established on the most efficient lines if they are to survive after the period of 10 years following which they will come into the open world of competition. The margin provided in the Bill is, in any case, a narrow one, even if you are going to establish the most efficient factories, and the Amendment provides that whore machinery or plant, such for example as a molasses tank made in England and fitted up ready for use by English workmen is to be delivered in sections—if it can be more efficiently delivered in that form—it shall not be assessed at a lower figure than if it is the final finished work, and that the cost of the whole plant, including the cost of pipes and joints which may be made in the factory on the spot, shall be taken into account in arriving at this figure of 75 per cent. If this be not done, the Measure may prove unworkable. It may be necessary, in order to comply with the Bill as now drafted, to set up special erecting shops, just outside the factory boundaries, and erect plant there, and then drag it into the factory so as to get over this arbitrary line. In order that the machinery may be set up in the most economical way, T beg to move the Amendment.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
One of the conditions on which the subsidy is to be granted is that 75 per cent. of the machinery shall be manufactured wholly in Great Britain. In the case of sugar factories great deal of the machinery and plant is actually erected on the site, and the result of this provision as it stands might be that if the most economical way of building plant and machinery were adopted, the 75 per cent. of British manufactured machinery would be difficult to obtain. I really believe that it is necessary in many cases to have some small percentage of foreign machinery. I think it is a desirable Amendment in itself, and makes for the easier and better provision of machinery for the factories.

Mr. WOOD: I am not sure that I have correctly appreciated the purpose of the
Mover of the Amendment, and, if I have correctly appreciated his purpose, I am not sure that these words would carry it out. I confess, as the words stand, that they appear to me to have the effect of reducing the percentage of machinery that is required to be British. I do not think that is my hon. Friend's intention, but I am advised that may be the effect of his words, and I asure him and other hon. Members that it would not be possible for me to accept an Amendment which was likely to have that effect. I have therefore turned my mind to the possibility of re-drafting the Amendment in a sense conforming to what I believe to be the hon. Member's desire and to the purpose which I myself should have entertained. After a long effort, I have had to abandon the attempt, and I have been reluctantly driven to the conclusion that it is impossible to graft on to the Amendment the words which would be necessary to make it discharge the purpose which I believe him to entertain.
The suggestion I make is that, if he withdraws his Amendment, I will do my best between now and the time when the Bill will reach another place, to see whether the point of substance which I understand is in view can be met in another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] The point of substance I believe to be this: The hon. Member contemplates the possibility of any piece of composite machinery being delivered into the factory, and being valued at a certain figure, let us say, £1,000. He contemplates the possibility of it being more economical to receive that composite machinery into the factory, not assembled, but in its different parts unassembled, in which case it would presumably carry a slightly lower value than in its assembled state, although, in fact, it is the same identical article, only in a different stage of evolution. If am right in thinking that is my hon. Friend's point, I think it is a legitimate point, but I do not think these words meet it, and I therefore ask him to withdraw his Amendment now, and between now and the Committee stage in another place, he and I and others will try to find words which will solve the difficulty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Fair wages to be paid by employers in receipt of subsidy.)

Mr. WIGNALL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after the word "shall" to insert the words
be those agreed upon by the Industrial Council, if any, representing the employer and the persons employed, existing in connection with the undertaking, and in the event of there being no such Industrial Council or, failing agreement on the part of such Industrial Council, the wages shall.

Mr. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him to say that in another form I think I could accept this Amendment, but I am not able, for technical reasons, to accept it in the form in which he proposes it.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am prepared to accept another form of words if it embody the principle.

Mr. WOOD: Perhaps I may read the words which I propose to substitute for those suggested in the hon. Member's Amendment. I propose, after the word "shall," to insert these words
except where paid at a rate agreed upon by a Joint Industrial Council representing the employer and the person employed, be.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am prepared to accept those words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made:

In page 3, line 28, after the word "shall," insert the words
except where paid at a rate agreed upon by a Joint Industrial Council representing the employer and the person employed, be."—[Mr. Wood.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Repayment of amounts improperly obtained and penalty for false statements, etc.)

Mr. WIGNALL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, at the end, to add the words
(3) If it is found at any time that any person who has obtained any payment by way of subsidy is paying to persons employed by him in connection with the manufacture of sugar or molasses wages less than those settled by the Industrial Court under the provisions of Section two of this Act he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of fifty pounds.
7.0 P.M.
I am afraid that my second Amendment is not going to be accepted as easily as
the first Amendment I moved, because on the first Amendment there was some ground of agreement. I am rather inclined to think, from what I know, that there is not the same ground of agreement on tins second Amendment. The real purpose of the Amendment is the sequel to what has been previously stated. In examining the Bill, we found that there were safeguards and conditions made to practically everybody concerned in the manufacture of beet sugar—the interest of all was safeguarded—except the workmen engaged in the production of the commodity with which he is dealing, and on the Committee stage we moved certain Amendments which were very sympathetically considered and very readily met by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wood). It is possible for an industrial council to be set up covering the industry, or it is possible for any other form of board to be set up in connection with the industry, but it is altogether another thing to keep them intact and to keep them working singly. In the sugar refining industry there was an industrial council existing for some considerable time when the rates of wages were fixed in connection with the industry. If the employers refused to accept-the decision to pay the wages agreed upon, they adopted a remedy which has been undoubtedly the weakness of the industrial council; they backed out of the council and by backing cut of the council they refused to carry out their obligation which was undoubtedly involved as being part of the industrial council, with the result that one or two firms refusing to pay crippled the whole thing and destroyed the machinery that had been set up to obtain this sane and sensible method of adjusting wages and maintaining good feeling and good-fellowship in the industry.
We are trying if it be possible to prevent a repetition of that occurring. This is the bone of contention. We provide here a penalty in connection with the agreement arrived at, and we say that if an offence is committed a penalty of £50 shall be imposed. I know this is a new departure and that it is advancing a new principle, a new idea, into industrial life, and one that may not be acceptable or palatable to a good many people, but we have got to realise a certain phase in industry, and it is manifested in various
ways as wages advance. I am prepared to say from my experience that there is a good deal of human nature in all sorts of employers, and, if they can take advantage, by reducing wages or paying low wages, they will certainly do so, armed with the same old story, "Well, the cost of living is much cheaper in the country than it is in the town. There is not so much to pay for rent. Consequently, if you save a bit in that way we must have it out of you." We arc trying to prevent that, and, for that reason, we have tabled this Amendment, in the hope that it can be carried and put into effect. I do so with the full assurance that there is no hon. or right hon. Member of this House who does not desire to safeguard the interests of the workmen just as much as he desires to safeguard the interests of those who have invested in the industry. This State subsidy makes the industry practically a State-owned concern for some years to come: for at least 10 years we can say it is State property, and, consequently, we ought to see that the workmen are safeguarded and given a fair chance. For that reason. I hope the House will accept that Amendment, as it completes the order of things which was started in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wood) accepting or agreeing to an Amendment which brought into existence the form of agreement and, added to it, by allowing industrial councils to be the means of settlement. If this part be added, it makes the thing complete, and it will be for the interest and the good of the community at large.

Mr. B. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is obvious, as we have accepted the principle of the Amendment preceding this one, that some form of safeguard should be instituted. In almost every phase of the conditions under which subsidy is given, there is protection or a penalty, except when it comes to the workpeople. The Association, assuming the re-forming of the Whitley Council, is a purely voluntary one. We find already existing refiners whose very great fear is that the establishment of the new refineries in rural areas will be instituted against them detrimentally, not only to them as employers but to the industry itself. Being a voluntary industry, we feel that it should not be allowed to happen as has previously happened when
a rate of wages is agreed upon, that an employer should be able to slip out and not conform to the conditions or agreement arrived at, thereby breaking down the council and bringing down the wages. The principle of the Amendment has been accepted that if there is not a council the fair wages agreement should apply. Surely it is not going too far to say that if the principle of that Clause is not carried out by employers a penalty ought to be imposed upon them. The Minister met us on the first Amendment. If a person obtains any payment by way of subsidy that would bring him within the purview of it. I do not know whether the Minister will argue in that way. If so, probably we shall be satisfied, but the fact remains that the time has arrived when this House, in agreeing to legislation for subscribing to the wellbeing of industries by way of subsidy, ought to ensure that the workpeople employed in that industry are adequately paid in common with other classes of workpeople.

Mr. WOOD: The Mover and Seconder of this Amendment were, quite accurate in stating that in Committee, when this question was under consideration, there was a very thorough consensus of desire to make the most effective provision possible to cover the conditions of those employed for wages in this new business to which public money is being devoted. Considerable effort and thought have been directed to the best way of doing it, and the hon. Member (Mr. Wignall) who introduced the Amendment, I think, was conscious of the difficulties attached to his Amendment and in the same way of the difficulties attached to the solution I have suggested; or, indeed, any solution which can be suggested. It really is a choice of evils which course, on the whole, it is wisest to adopt. I have suggested, and I still suggest, as things stand now, that the House should proceed upon this principle. Where there is an Industrial Council we take their agreement, and where there is no Industrial Council, or where it does not agree, we bring the Fair Wages Clause into operation. If there be any dispute about the Fair Wages Clause we will submit that to an Industrial Court.
I want to emphasise why I stop there instead of going on one step further. Hon. Members opposite suggest the im-
position of a penalty of £50 on summary conviction on any employer who fails to carry out an award. It is not through any friendliness to employers in this respect that I take up that position, or that I do not believe that it might be in the power of the employer or some small minority group of employers to affect the well-being of the industry, to deliberately wreck machinery that is set up and is calculated to do so much for the general harmony of the whole industry. It is not that. If that were the only consideration I should have no hesitation at all in accepting the Amendment, but my difficulty is this. The House will bear in mind that both these Industrial Councils—with which you, Mr. Speaker, have been so closely connected, and of which, I think, you were the parent—and these Industrial Courts were established on a wholly voluntary basis. Indeed, I suspect, although I cannot claim to speak with authority on the matter, that one of the reasons that they have been so successful is that they have been established and maintained upon that wholly voluntary basis. I cannot doubt that the instant you alter that voluntary basis and make them, directly or indirectly, of a compulsory character you will alter the whole atmosphere in which they function, for that is, of course, what you are doing by this Amendment. In this Amendment they propose to endow the Industrial Court with compulsory powers vis-à-vis the employers. Are they sure that, if they start on that road, the next move will not be to endow the Industrial Court with compulsory powers vis-à-vis the unions? Are they anxious to see that? A great many of their colleagues outside this House, I suspect, are not, and I, therefore, venture to warn them of the results that may follow from entering on this path.
Lastly, I would suggest to them and to the House that, if we are to introduce compulsion into this Industrial Council and Industrial Court hierarchy at all, it should be done rather by means of general legislation than by means of wholly exceptional legislation in regard to one very small industry, as it is proposed to do in this Amendment. Therefore, recognising indeed that my plan is not a perfect one, but recognising what
are, I think, the more weighty objections, on the long view, to the plan suggested by hon. Members opposite, I must regretfully state my inability to accept the Amendment, and express my hope to them that they will realise, as I am sure they do, that I have done my best to meet the objections that we all have at heart together, and that, on consideration, they will not think it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.

Miss WILKINSON: With regard to the Minister's suggestion that, if we seek to give compulsory powers against the employers, they may in turn seek compulsion against the unions, is it not a fact that these are only minimum wages, and that in the Trade Boards Act, which is working quite well, while it is open to the unions to ask for more, the employers cannot pay less, so that, as a matter of fact, this principle is already established in the minimum wage legislation of this country? With regard to the point that the success of the joint industrial councils has been due to their voluntary character, while I dare say that that was true in the early days, I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that that can now be maintained, in view of the experience of the Soap Joint Industrial Council, where, when the wages began to fall because of the slump, the great Soap Combine, the Lever Combine. simply smashed the machinery by saying: "This is merely a voluntary wages board, and we are not bound by it," and simply reducing their employés wages, without any reference to the Joint Industrial Council at all. While I can quite see the force of the argument that, if you are going to alter the whole basis of joint industrial councils, you had better do it by a general Rill rather than by a special Bill, I would like to ask whether the Minister docs not consider that a very useful experiment might be made with this particular Sugar Joint Industrial Council, because it is a subsidised industry, and because the Government have very special powers in this respect, and that it might be very much more difficult for them to undertake the enforcement of such a thing on the Soap Council until the matter had been tried out in some smaller sphere. I would like to ask whether he does not think a very useful ground for experiment might be found in this particular Sugar Industrial Council.

Mr. SHORT: While the House will appreciate the very friendly tone and attitude of the Minister towards this Amendment, I think there will be some disappointment in many directions at his failure to accept it. He seems to have stressed the argument that industrial councils as they exist to-day are voluntary in their character, and that there is nothing in law to enforce any decision at which they arrive, and he seems to think, therefore, that it would be wise and judicious on our part to maintain that principle in so far as this particular industry is concerned. We are incorporating a new principle in this industry, in that we are assisting in the creation of a new industry by bringing to its aid the financial support and credit of the country. Consequently, it seems to me reasonable that we should not merely seek to lay down conditions of employment and to secure, having regard to the financial support that the State is giving to the industry, fair rates and wages, but (hat when those rates of wages are fixed, even by voluntary associations, we should go further and seek to enforce them by some statutory means. That is the purpose of the Amendment, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, having gone so far, and shown his goodwill and anxiety, which we all appreciate, in the matter of the wages of the workers in this industry, would have been willing to have gone a step farther.
On the other hand, he feels that there might be some danger in the application of this principle of compulsion. He does not suggest, if I understood him aright, that it would create any discord in this particular industry. He does not foresee, I gather, any danger in that respect, but he seemed to suggest the possibility of some danger accruing to the trade union movement. Upon that matter, I think the trade union movement can look after itself. I think we are strong enough to prevent anything being forced upon us unless we desire it in some measure. We have not been afraid of Trade Boards. I know that they are dealing with what are termed "sweated" wages, and that Trade Boards exist for the purpose of improving the standard of living of people engaged in such industries, but we have here a grave danger that something similar might obtain in this industry, because of the low wages that are paid
in rural areas, and it is because of that very danger that my hon. Friends put forward their previous Amendment, which the Minister was good enough to accept. If that danger exists, or is likely to exist—and it is acknowledged by the acceptance of the previous Amendment that it is likely to exist—it seems that we ought to go a step further, and enforce the wage when it is once accepted and agreed upon.
The Bill in its present form is by no means a perfect arrangement. It is not an arrangement which will guarantee a very high standard of living for the workers in the industry. No one can say what is likely to happen under the Amendment which has been accepted, but, on the other hand, it seems desirable that, once having established something in the nature of a council, and that council having arrived at some satisfactory wage, we ought to be in a position to enforce the agreement reached between the parties. T had hoped that my right hon. Friend would have been disposed to regard this Amendment with greater friendliness. I regret that he has not been able to do so, and, as I have said, I am afraid there will be some disappointment in. many quarters.

Mr. FENBY: I, like hon. Members above the Gangway, appreciate to the full the friendly attitude of the Minister with regard to this question, but I fee] that there should be something binding to make this Clause fully operative. T quite agree with the Minister that the more agreement we can have in industry, whether it be in agriculture or in any-other industry, the better it is for master and for man, but I am entirely at a loss to understand the attitude of the Minister when, if I heard him rightly, he suggested that there should be no compulsion in this particular ease. You have, as he knows, and as the House is very well aware, the Agricultural Wages Board Regulations, and you have certain penalties connected therewith, if, in a given area, an employer pays a man less than the amount named in the Order which is applicable to that particular area, the Order having been confirmed by the Central Wages Board. I should like, if I could, to agree with the Minister that every person engaged in this and every other industry is a perfectly honest and honourable man who
will do everything fair and square to everybody with whom he has to deal, but, unfortunately, the facts are against him, and I think a penalty is suggested in this Amendment, not in order to do harm to the good employer. He does not need looking at, but it is the individual who would take advantage of a Section of the Act which allows him, without a penalty, to do something which the Act never intended that he should be allowed to do, and I would like to appeal to my right hon. Friend in this matter. I know him as a very good agriculturist and a very fine landlord in my own county, knowing agriculture from A to Z, as it were, from the point of view of landlord, of farmer, and of labourer. I know his fair-mindedness, and I appeal to him, not only on behalf of the good employer, but in the interest of the man who is not quite so good, and also in the interest of the men who have to work as workers in this particular industry. It has been said that it is a new matter that has been taken up. It is a new venture. Let us do everything we can to make the Act. watertight, and it seems to me, unless I misread this particular Amendment—and the right hon. Gentleman agrees to it all, I believe, except the penalty—that unless the penalty is put in. the Clause will not be operative at all.

Mr. C. DUNCAN: As one who, as a trade union leader, has had something to do with the administration of the Agricultural Rates Act, may I tell the House that thousands and thousands of pounds have been obtained from employers who were not carrying out the Act, and following judgments obtained in the Courts. The employers were not paying the wages that had been fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board. On this side of the House, perhaps, we sometimes overdo the purely workman's side of the case, but I have been rather surprised that in this Debate we have not had some expressions of opinion from some of the employers, because the matter is just as vital and important to them as it is to the workmen represented by the Labour Members in this House. I know of a case which happened quite recently—it was not in this particular industry—where one employer who was not a member of the Industrial Council was paying rates of wages which enabled
him to compete unfairly in price with the products that he was selling. A dispute took place, and the rest of the employers in that particular industry gave their help to the men in the dispute, because they recognised that this particular employer, if he were allowed to carry on in this way, would have the men in a bad position and trade would go in the wrong direction. After all, what is the position in regard to this Amendment? The case has got to be tried: the offence has to be proved, though there may be something novel in the application of the principle of this industry.
May I remind the Minister of a discussion that took place in this House during last Session, when the whole question was whether the awards of the industrial councils should or should not be enforceable. It must be within the memory of the Minister himself that this Resolution was carried almost unanimously by this House. That is a very important decision. It should indicate to the Minister that, after all, he is not taking a very extreme plunge in this question of seeing that the circumstances which are certainly new and novel in this particular industry are considered in the way we suggest. There surely ought not to be any very great hesitation in accepting either this particular Amendment or the suggestion that in some other form the matter might be reconsidered at a later stage.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: There is another aspect of this question than that put by hon. Members who have recently spoken, which I would ask the Minister to consider in the light of the concluding words of my hon. Friend (Mr. Duncan) who has just sat down. This is a Fair Wages Clause on the basis of a contract between the Government and the sugar-producing firms by way of subsidy. If it is not possible for the Minister to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has put on the Paper, is it not possible for him between this stage and the consideration of the Bill in another place to devise a form of words which would impose a penalty on the same basis as a penalty is imposed by a local authority where the Fair Wages Clause is abrogated by a contractor?
It may be said that that is difficult to do, because, in the case of these contracts the only remedy by way of penalty is to
withdraw the contracts. I want to submit to the Minister that the basis ot this Bill is a contract between the Government on behalf of the community, and those who are responsible for this new industry; and if the Minister, having regard to a wages dispute, and the award of the Industrial Court having been made—it may be in the interests of the workmen concerned—and not being accepted by one of the firms obtaining the subsidy, a fair penalty is to withdraw the subsidy until the firm pays a fair wage. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet my hon. Friend in the able case that he put up, he would probably withdraw the Amendment; if he could be assured that between now and the next stage of the progress of the Bill through Parliament, he would consider words to meet this particular point of view.

Mr. WOOD: The whole course of this Debate exhibits the danger to which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) has unconsciously drawn my attention, which is that it is always very difficult, if anyone makes a concession at all, to find the next logical place at which to stop. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have quite properly and fairly used the argument that having once begun one ought to go rather further and stretch the concession that has been made. The hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) both drew my attention to what, of course, I was quite familiar with, and that was the existing state of the law in regard to a possible wages dispute, and they also mentioned the law in regard to trade boards. What they said was perfectly true. It is quite true that in those cases the boards have compulsory powers.
But the suggestion that I submitted to the House when I spoke last is of rather a different nature. I do not wish to give any encouragement to the arguments which had been used that the trade boards and the Agricultural Wages Committee are one and the same thing. The suggestion put forward is that I should, by the Amendment, take such a step as to endow bodies which possess what have hitherto been voluntary powers with compulsory powers. The hon. Lady for Middles-borough says, with sweet reasonableness: "Would it not be very wise to experiment and see how it works?" My own
view is that in a matter of this kind an experiment cannot be made without affecting the general principle that is involved, and it is desirable to consider first before you try this new principle. Therefore, with the greatest regret I must express myself unable to accept the Amendment that has been moved. As to my hon. Friend who spoke from below the Gangway, I have only to express my own appreciation of the kind manner in which he spoke, and to assure him that I am alive to what he says, and am as anxious as he is, and, indeed, as any Member, to try to get the best solution that we can find for a difficulty of which we are conscious. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last made a suggestion to the House that I myself have had in mind. I should like to see this Clause made as effective as it can be made. I am conscious of the difficulty of doing it. I am not sanguine of being able to overcome that difficulty. I am quite prepared, however, to apply my mind to the problem again, as he suggested, between now and the Bill reaching another place. If we can find a solution I shall be very glad. I do not wish hon. Members opposite to in any way consider me as pledged to succeed, because, quite frankly, I am not very sanguine of being able to succeed. I will do my best to review the whole question again in the light of this discussion, which has been an extremely useful one. If hon. Members, on that understanding, are willing to withdraw their Amendment, I can assure them that what they have said will have the fullest consideration.

Mr. G. SPENCER: In the case of a dispute now, has not the Minister the right, to send the case to the Industrial Court; and if the Industrial Court decides, what power has the Minister to enforce the decision that has been arrived at?

Mr. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman of course realises that the question he has put has been the difficulty around which the whole discussion has turned. It is to find the most satisfactory answer to that question that I am now again taking this into consideration.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am sure my right hon. Friend will do as he has done before, and consult us as to any possible form of Amendment.

Mr. WIGNALL: On the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter into further consideration, I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Rate of Subsidy.)

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out Column 2.
The object of the Amendment is to reduce the rate of subsidy from 19s, 6d. per cwt. to 13s. for the first few years during which the subsidy is to be granted, and for the last remaining four years to make it as it is in Column 4 in the Schedule. In Committee upstairs I raised the question of the rate of subsidy, and I pleaded with the Minister at that time to grant a subsidy not of 19s. 6d. or 13s., but of 6s. 6d. This afternoon I am choosing a more moderate course, and I hope that I may have, perhaps, same concession from him. It was indicated during the course of our proceedings this afternoon that a certain concession was being made to my hon. Friends above the Gangway. To the interests of the refining industry, which I do not disguise from him I represent in the House this evening, he has held cut no concession of any sort, and the Amendment which I move would have the effect of reducing the rate of subsidy for the first four or five years. It is the high rate during the coming years which raises anxiety in the minds of the reining industry. I have no desire at this late stage to repeat any of the arguments I advanced on former stages of the Bill. I apologise to the House for raising this subject this evening. I have already wearied the House on this subject in the past. But the refiners do fear that with a high rate of 19s. 6d. their interests may be severely affected. They do not fear the lower rate so much. In a later stage this evening the House of Commons will De asked to vote a sum of £516,000 towards the beet-sugar subsidy for the present year. If that large subsidy is to come from the pockets of the taxpayer this year, when only a very few factories are arranged and in working order, what will be the position a few years hence when this subsidy is well known and further factories are put up? I move my Amendment not only in the interests of the sugar refiners, but in the interests of the British taxpayer as a whole.

Major CRAWFURD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. E. WOOD: I am sure the refining industry can in no sense complain of the manner in which the hon. Member who represents them has been able to champion their cause. He has lost no opportunity of presenting their case, and explaining what they conceive to be the hard treatment this Bill metes out to them. He did it first of all on the Financial Resolution, then on the Second Reading of the Bill, afterwards on the Committee stage, and now here this evening; and he cannot feel that ample opportunity has not been afforded for the consideration of their particular grievances. I would only remind him and other hon. Members that the question he is concerned with is not, and has not been for some years, a new question. On Second Reading I said that, in one form or another, the question had been before successive Governments and successive Parliaments ever since about 1912. On successive occasions the refiners' case has been examined by Departments, by Governments and by Parliaments, and. unfortunately, has not succeeded in securing their assent. That is a significant chain of historical events. I hope I need only tell the House this evening that if they were to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment they must be under no apprehension as to what they would be doing. They would completely wreck the whole Bill. The hon. Gentleman might just as well succeed to morrow in carrying a Motion that the Bill be read a Third time on this clay six months, as carry this Motion to-night. Let nobody be persuaded by his eloquence and his powers of persuasion into supposing this Amendment is merely a minor alteration of a schedule. I have never concealed the fact that I believe the refiners are suffering at the present moment, and passing through a period of hardship and difficulty, but all the investigations and researches I have been able to make have led me to believe that their difficulties are due to foreign competition, and that they are using this Bill as a peg on which to hang a claim for protection against foreign competition. That is a perfectly natural and entirely legitimate desire on their part, but it is not a reason for refusing assent to this Bill, which I hope
the House will continue to accord by rejecting the Amendment of the Ron. Baronet if, as I rather hope he may not, he finds it necessary to go to a Division.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, at the end, to insert the words
and for every increase of one shilling per hundredweight in the market price of sugar over the standard price of thirty-five shillings per hundredweight the rate of the subsidy shall be proportionately reduced.
In moving this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), I want to put very strongly to the right hon. Gentleman a point of view which has already been expressed in Committee, and to which we do not think an adequate reply has been made. We are very much obliged to the Minister for the very courteous way in which he has dealt with us all the way through, but he has not met us in regard to the principle contained in this Amendment. His courtesy has extended to seeing that the farmers are given something out of the subsidy by getting a guaranteed price for their beet; the people who put up the capital have the interest on their capital virtually guaranteed on account of the subsidy; although we have not yet got to the position we desire to reach respecting the wages of the workmen, we have, at any rate, made a start by getting some basis of machinery for securing their wages; but as far as the taxpayers and consumers are concerned, we have no safeguard for them in the Bill. I take it the rates of subsidy in the schedule were agreed upon by the Minister, in consultation with the interests concerned, on the basis of the price of sugar at the date on which the subsidy operates.

Mr. WOOD: indicated dissent,

Mr. ALEXANDER: Well, in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman's advisers.

Mr. WOOD: No, the rates were agreed by my predecessor.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Well, whoever agreed to them, it does not very much matter to my argument. The point is, What was the price of sugar on the date from which the subsidy would operate?
It was round about 31s. or 35s. per cwt. I take it that the rate of subsidy laid down was such as to allow a fair margin of profit to those who would he engaged in this new industry at that price of 35s. per cwt. It is perfectly reasonable for us to say, in seeking to protect the consumer and the taxpayer, that if the price of sugar goes up to such an extent that profits on the capital of these undertakings in a subsidised industry are largely increased, the rate of subsidy should be reduced pro rata with the increase in profits accruing from the higher price of the commodity. That is a perfectly sound economic proposition which, I think, will appeal to Members with business acumen in all parts of the House.

Sir W. MITCHELL: Will it operate the other way?

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is a very interesting interjection, because my experience of the negotiations with those concerned in this sugar industry is that they have never hesitated to come forward when prices have gone the other way. They first started with 6s., then the figure rose to 25s. 8d., and I prophesy that at the end of four years, when the subsidy should go down from 10s. 6d. to 13s., we shall be asked to maintain it at 19s. 6d. I venture to prophesy that, It is a perfectly sound course for us to ask the Minister, as head of a public department, and concerned for the interest of the. taxpayers, to see that if there be any likelihood of undue profit being made by an increase in the price of the commodity a corresponding advantage be given to the taxpayer by a corresponding reduction in the rate of the subsidy.

Mr. BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that the best argument for this Amendment is the statement made by the Minister himself, when moving the Second Beading of the Bill, that in his opinion the production of sugar in this country would not affect world prices. What does that mean? The net cost of sugar, and the world's price of sugar, has varied in the last two years from 22s. per cwt. to 40s. I am eliminating the tax, which, when sugar was 65s. per cwt., was 25s. 8d., and now that sugar is down to 33s., is 11s. 8d. If the Minister is well grounded in his argument that the
quantity of sugar we shall produce in this country, even under favourable conditions, will not affect the world price, then I think the Minister and the House must meet this argument. The factories are obviously being established on the cost of production of sugar to-day, and if that is the case, and there is any future increase in the price of sugar, our demand is a quite reasonable one. I think it is largely recognised in the trade to-day that the price of sugar is about as low as it can possibly get. [HON. MEMBER: "No, no !"] Oh, yes, it is. The world price before the War, eliminating tax, was 15s. or 16s. per cwt. To-day, again eliminating tax, the net cost of sugar is about 22s. per cwt. Making allowance for the change in relative values in that period, there is very little difference to-day in the cost of production, in view of the increased prices prevailing. There was not the remotest possibility of reducing the cost of sugar in the 1914 period. Therefore, I think we can argue that we have more or less got to rock-bottom prices at the present moment. This subsidy has been given on that basis.
What will happen in the future? Let me take one very possible contingency. We know that when America went dry the population were driven on to sweet drinks, which meant an abnormal increase in the consumption of sugar. That had the effect of causing a temporary world shortage, and forced up the world price throughout Europe as well as America. There is an increasing tendency for other nations and districts to go dry, and I think it is a natural assumption, even if we do not get prohibition by legislation, that the demand for sugar throughout the world will increase. Therefore, all natural tendencies will be in the direction of forcing up the price of sugar. If that happens we may get a rise of 5s. or 10s. a cwt. in the world's price, but the expenses of production in Great Britain will not necessarily increase, because the cost of transport will not move upwards nor will wages move upwards. It follows, of necessity, that if the market price of sugar rises by 2s., 5s. or 10s. per cwt., that will be a clear profit, given to them by the rise in world price.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment mentioned that the investor was secured, the farmer was secured, and
that there was a desire to secure the workmen, but he omitted the fact that the engineering industry has also secured its price and its guarantee. When, in a previons Amendment, we asked that the taxpayers should get their security in the form of a share in the assets it was defeated. Now we ask that the consumer and taxpayer should get an advantage if there be any increase in the world price. It is a businesslike demand, which can be justified on all grounds.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. WOOD: I must confess to a certain feeling of disappointment that the hon. Member should have felt it necessary to put down this Amendment again, because although the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) was not present when we discussed this matter in Committee, I had at cue time the hope that my eloquence had been successful in convincing the hon. Member for South-East Ham (Mr. Barnes). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, I had been so unwise as to cherish the hope that I had convinced the hon. Member for South-East Ham that this Amendment was essentially a wholly improper Amendment for one so wise as himself to lend his support. As I was apparently not successful, I can only re-state what are the principle arguments that make me unable to accept the Amendment. I pass by the fact that the effect of it would be, of course, to make the subsidy a very variable quantity. The first common ground that everybody who has considered this problem has reached is that wherever you put your subsidy, if you want it to produce results, it must be an assured subsidy; people must know where they are. Under this plan, it would, of course, vary from day to day, from week to week, or from month to month, with the price of sugar, and it would be an uncertain quantity.
And what is the standard price? I observed that the hon. Member had the good sense to say very little indeed about what was the standard price of sugar. He, of course, knows much more about it than I do, but I should be surprised if he differs from me in saying that you have on the same day one price of sugar in London, one in Liverpool and one in Glasgow. Which should be the standard price, and in what way should the standard price be arrived at for this
calculation? I do not think the hon. Member has any very satisfactory answer to give. Then he said that the Amendment must be reasonable, because it is evident that the subsidy must have been calculated in relation to the price in June, 1924, since when the price has altered. But if that was the basis of calculation, I am, of course, bound to accept what he said, and he, indeed, is more likely than I am to know, because it was his Government that made the arrangement. But I have always supposed that the calculation as to subsidy was arrived at, in the main, by trying to arrive at some figure that would represent a sort of rough compromise between the possible fluctuations of price, the value of the remission of Excise, and so on, bringing all these considerations into view.
Therefore, I do not think it is a final argument to say that, because the price has altered since the subsidy was fixed, the subsidy itself should be rendered liable to variations. It is also proposed that the subsidy should be reduced as the price of sugar rises, on the assumption that the mere fact that the price of sugar is rising, implies that the manufacturer is making bigger profits. Let hon. Members apply their minds for one moment to see how fallacious that argument is. It is quite true that the world price of sugar is likely to be regulated, of course, by the world output of sugar, but it is not at all impossible that you might get a rise in the world price of sugar coincident with a simultaneous rise in the manufacturing costs in the British factory. The manufacturer in England might find, and is quite likely to find, his cost of transport going up, his costs of labour higher, and yet the very moment his manufacturing costs are increasing against him, you will come down, because of some chance fluctuation of world price, and reduce the subsidy. I submit that is not a reasonable proposition to make.
Lastly, the corollary, which my hon. Friend below the Gangway pointed out by way of interjection, which I thought was quite inadequately taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite—the corollary of this plan would be, that if the price of sugar fell, the profit of the factory would be reduced, and, therefore, the subsidy ought to rise. You really cannot have it both ways. You must have it one way or the
other, and I suggest, therefore, that that very simple test of the unwillingness of hon. Members opposite to face the position if the price of sugar fell, and their unwillingness to link that with a revision of the subsidy in an upward direction, is a very fair test of the very unsatisfactory character of their proposal. For these reasons—and I apologise for giving them at rather greater length than I intended, but I think the Amendment is one of importance—T must invite the House not to accept the Amendment, and I hope the hon. Gentlemen will not feel it necessary to divide the House.

Amendment negatived.

Bill to be read the Third time to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1924-25.

CLASS II.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £268,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of Hatch. 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses Manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain, Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Minister give the Committee some explanation of this Estimate?

Mr. WOOD: I am most anxious to give an explanation on any points on which the Committee think that it stands in need of explanation. If hon. Members have the Estimates before them, they will see that they naturally fall into three groups. The first is one concerned with agricultural wages, and it is entirely a question of machinery for bringing into operation the working of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act that was
passed last Session. The sum, of course, does not represent the amount that would be required in a full year, because the Act only came into operation in October. I think that all the figures speak for themselves, but, if any further information be necessary, I could, of course, give it. It is, however, purely machinery. The beet sugar subsidy we have been discussing, and I think the Committee is generally familiar with that. The last item—the Fishery Department Vote—is a small item that arises as follows. Each year it has been the policy of my Department to incur some small expenditure upon the improvement of small harbours round the coast, and to do that in conjunction with local offers that may be elicited in the same cause. I wish, myself, that we had more money to spend in this direction, because it is an extremely valuable expenditure of money. I only regret that I am not asking for a larger sum. I hope next year to be able to stand at this box and ask for still more money for the purpose.

Mr. SPENCER: May I ask whether this is the time to consider the Government policy with regard to foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. WOOD: I am afraid that the subject of foot-and-mouth disease docs not arise on this Estimate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 10th March.]

[Captain FITZ Roy in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11 and 12 Geo. 5. c. 65, and extension of period for giving guarantees.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the, Bill."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I only want to see if it is not possible, even at this late stage, to go into the question of the money so far as shipbuilding is concerned. I know hon. Members think we have
thrashed out this subject almost to the point of endurance, but it is a very important matter for the City which we represent. I wish to ask this point of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of shipbuilding contracts having been placed abroad, causing so much concern to our people, it is not possible even now to go into the whole question of the relationship of shipbuilding, and see if it be not possible for greater aid to be given to the industry in this time of need.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): As the hon. Member knows, we have withdrawn the embargo on the shipbuilding guarantee, and we are most anxious that there should be no gap in our payments, which might be the case if we did not act this Bill.

Mr. FENBY: May I ask what rate of interest is to be paid on borrowed money?

Mr. GUINNESS: We do not borrow money: we only give guarantees.

Mr. FENBY: May I ask what are the charges, and does the rate vary over a period?

Mr. GUINNESS: This is entirely for unemployment. We do not borrow money; we only guarantee it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

FOREIGN MANUFACTURES (IMPORTATION).

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: I beg to move
That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable to continue the unrestricted importation of Foreign manufactured goods made under sweated or other conditions which, being inconsistent with the principles of British trade unionism, are detrimental to the interests of British workmen, and that such imports are a contributory factor to unemployment in this country.
When I drafted this Motion I thought, foolishly, that I had done something that has rarely been done before in the House of Commons. I thought I had succeeded
in getting before the House a Motion that would receive the unqualified assent of every Member and every party in the House. Of course there was always a possibility that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), with his eagle eye always scanning the horizon, might think some breach was being made in the sacred precincts of Cobdenism. There was also a possibility that the highbrows of the Liberal party generally, as jealous guardians and custodians of the ancient order of shibboleths, might not be inarticulate on this occasion. But I did rot expect, and I am grieved and disappointed that any opposition to this plain, simple, innocent Motion should come from hon. Gentlemen who claim in a special manner to represent the working men of this country. Indeed, when this Motion first appeared in print I was congratulated by many hon. Members on the opposite benches belonging to the Labour and Socialist party. I was complimented upon it, and I was told that I should receive a great measure of individual and collective support; in fact one Member of the Labour party, a man of very distinguished and high standing in the trade union movement, agreed to second my, Motion.
And then something happened. There was the crack of the party whip. It appears from the Press that several meetings have been held upstairs. There were alarms and excursions, discussions and conferences of a more or less amicable nature have taken place, and this Amendment was the product of long and laborious but not too harmonious consultations of the Labour party. T have seen a good many Amendments put forward it: this House by hon. Members on the Labour Benches, but seriously I do not know whether it is a compromise or a composite Measure, or whether it represents the difference between what we know are the outstanding features of that party. I do not think that the draughtsman of this Amendment is to be complimented. It is a hermaphrodite. It has no ancestry, and it does not represent a fair compromise between the two contending sections.
I have a very definite cause of complaint in so far as this Amendment purports to deal with the Resolution. My idea in framing this Resolution was to
get a clear, definite expression of opinion from this House as to whether or not it is desirable to continue the unrestricted importation of sweated goods. I do not want this question to be complicated by going back to the eternal question of Free Trade and Tariff Reform. It is a simple proposal. But what does the Amendment say? It reads into the Resolution three things which are not in it, and to which I venture to say I am entitled to object. First of all, the Motion says nothing whatever about tariffs. I had not tariffs in my mind when I drew up my Resolution, and there is nothing of the kind in it. It says nothing about the Conservative party or any other party, or their relation to trade unions in this country. Perhaps I may be permitted to observe that the innuendo in the Amendment that the Conservative party take no interest in trade unions is not fair. Personally I am a very strong supporter and upholder of the principles of trade unionism and the concentration of trade union forces. Representing, as I do, a large industrial constituency in a great industrial area, and having been returned with a majority of between 11,000 and 12,000, I think I am entitled to say that if I had not received the overwhelming support of the trade unionists and working men in my division I should not be here to-day. Therefore, I think that statement in the Amendment is somewhat misleading and somewhat ungenerous.
The third reference to which I take exception in the Amendment is that to sweating at home. The Motion refers to unrestricted sweated goods coming in from abroad, but there is all the difference in the world between the evil of sweating at home and the unrestricted importation of goods made abroad by sweated labour. Whatever sweated goods may happen to the made in this country contrary to trade union principles, there are, in regard to them, adequate and ample safeguards. There are, firstly, the trade unions themselves, who are well able to look after their own business; and, secondly, there is the machinery which, as all hon. Members know, has been set up to deal with sweating where it is found to exist. Surely, however, the real reason for this Amendment is obvious. It is that the unrestricted importation of sweated goods is the official policy of the
Labour Socialist party. I only hear a very faint "No" to that. That being so, I can well understand, and the House can well understand, that it would have been a very awkward thing to allow this Motion to come to a definite Division if it could have been prevented. As a matter of fact, it cannot be prevented. I shall oppose this Amendment, and I hope my Friends will oppose it, and I shall hope and expect to get a Division on the main Question. Then we shall see what attitude hon. Members on the Labour benches will take up on the question of the importation of sweated goods, and what answer they will give to their constituents when they go down to them at the week-end.
At about the time, when I was first preparing a speech to support this Motion, some kind friend sent mo some copies of a weekly paper which is well known and widely read amongst hon. Members on the Labour Benches. There were three issues, and they contained some very striking articles on this very question by the right hoi. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). [An HON. MEMBER: "What paper was it?"] Well, I do not mind giving a free advertisement to the paper. It was the paper called "Forward," which, I believe, is ably edited and controlled and governed and directed by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I have been reading it very carefully. When I read these articles, I said to myself, "If I sit down to prepare a speech in support of my Motion, I cannot do it half as well as this. I cannot do it so cogently, so strikingly, so forcibly, so logically. Here is the very thing I am looking for." In one of these articles the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston took occasion to deliver a very trenchant, and, I may say, very crushing reply to his distinguished colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who had made a very able speech during the Debate in this House on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill a little time before. It is very interesting to see the giant minds of these two right hon. Gentlemen, these two great intellects, in conflict. I venture to think that, if I were a betting man, I should be inclined to lay a shade of odds on the new school represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Shettleston, rather than on the old school represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley. I regret that neither of these two right hon. Gentlemen is present in his place to-night. I took occasion to communicate with them, thinking that it might be very interesting if they were present, but I know that both of them have very important engagements outside this House.
I am glad that when I said, a moment ago, that the unrestricted importation of foreign goods is the official policy of the Labour Socialist party, I was not contradicted. It was accepted, and it is also, of course, accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. In one of these articles, which appeared on the 21st February, the right hon. Gentleman puts the matter in a nutshell. He says:
Labour is in difficulties on this question. Liberal Free Trade is the policy of the party. Until this is somehow modified by an annual conference, the Parliamentary party is helpless. They must continue to be more Liberal than the Liberals, and to regard this as the best way to kill Liberalism.
That, surely is not a very generous way of killing by kindness. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:
I cannot, as a Socialist, support what is called Free Trade any more than I can the Tory policy.
Here lot me say that I entirely object to the form "Free Trade" It is a misnomer; it means nothing; we have not, never have had, and never will have Free Trade in this country. We have been talking about Free Trade, but we never had it. We have a system of free imports and taxed exports. We have a system under which we are free to buy but not free to sell. Free Trade is the free exchange of commodities at their proper values between nations. We have never had it, and, looking from the Continent of Europe to the United States of America, I venture to think that we are farther away from it now than ever we were. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:
Free Trade is outrageously anti-Socialist. It is anarchy in trade. It denies the right of the people to control the individual. The idea is the survival of a primitive commercial age. Its historic and fundamental claim is to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest
Trade unionism wisely violates the principle of Free Trade. It prevents an individual from selling his labour power to an employer at a free market place. On the other hand, it insists on the wages of the workers in a particular industry being fixed by collective action, and, when fixed, protected by all the resources of the union and, when possible, by the community.
Then he goes on to give a specific instance:
If a bricklayer, a joiner or an engineer offers to sell his labour power below the standard rate, his Free Trade action leads rightly to a strike. His colleagues know that if an employer is allowed to import cheap labour into the workshop, all the workers in that workshop will have their standard of living reduced, and in face of this hard economic fact all the available oratorical eulogies of individual liberty leave the workers cold.
I could not produce anything half so good as that myself. The right hon. Gentleman goes on:
Assume that for some local reason a shipbuilding employer on the north side of the Clyde succeeds in employing cheaper labour than an employer on the south side. What would happen? His ship would cost him less, he could undersell his south side rival, and his yard would-be kept busy while the other was idle.
Is not that, perfectly true, and will any of his Socialist colleagues contradict it?
No one has ever been able to explain to me what difference it makes if the rival sets of conditions are north and south of the English Channel instead of north and south of the Clyde. If I wanted a ship built on the Ordinary competitive basis and invited lenders from Fairfield, Beardmore's, and a Continental firm, the one which could get its work done cheapest would be able to accept less than the other two. If Beard-more were undercut by cheaper labour what would it matter whether the employer of this was Fairfield or the Continental firm?
This is entirely logical, and I would like to supplement it by another instance. A and B are two British workmen who are members of the same trade union. They are friends and live side by side to each other. A is in full employment, B is unemployed. A works every day at the trade union rate of wages. B is on the dole. B has a wife and family and gradually the shoe begins to pinch. His savings are gone and his furniture and whatever effects he has are going one by one. The pinch becomes harder, deeper and fiercer, hunger and want enter into that home, and in this state of desperation that man, a British workman and a trade unionist, goes to his employer and offers his work, because he is starving, at a shilling a
week less than the trade union rate of wages. What happens The employer has to say, "No, I cannot agree," and If he did not, there would be a strike at once. [HON. MEMBERS. "Why not?"] You are there upholding the rigid, logical principle of trade unionism, with which I find no fault. But C is a German workman. He works for two-thirds of the wages and two tours a day longer, making precisely the same goods that A is making and B would make if he got the chance. The trade unionists and the trade union leaders and members of the Labour Socialist party say, "While we will not allow B to earn his living and he may starve, we welcome with open arms the work of C, a German workman, because we must uphold the sacred doctrines and principles of Cob-denism. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you mean shipbuilding?"] I mean any trade you like to mention. What is trade unionism? Trade unionism surely is protection. A workman joins a trade union to protect himself against unfair conditions of labour, against blacklegging, against sweating—

Mr. SEXTON: At home.

Sir G. DOYLE: Against sweating at home, against any condition which will have the tendency or defect of lowering the standard of living that he has set up for himself, and how can he or his leaders of the party whom he is alleged to support go on with this illogical system? Either the workmen of this country will have to make up their minds to work longer hours for less wages under worse conditions, or they will have to make up their minds to give the same measure of protection to the product and fruit of their labour as to the labour itself, and there is no way of getting out of that.
I referred a moment ago to the very able assistance I also received from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee in that paper to which I have referred, the name of which was received with so much acclamation on those benches. In a leading article on 21st February, which I think my hon. Friend would be rather proud to acknowledge because it bears the impress of that trenchant style so characteristic of him, he says:
We recognise that there is a Socialist policy on international trade differing fundamentally from a Liberal party policy The Liberal party welcomes imports of
goods irrespective of the labour conditions under which the goods are produced.
But, surely, so does Labour. So does the official policy of the Labour party. That is less than fair to the benches behind me—
The trade unionist in Dundee, for example, objects to sweated jute goods being manufactured in London or Aberdeen or Glasgow. He or she will take active measures to prevent the importation into Dundee of sweated goods manufactured in any part of the United Kingdom. Why, then, in the name of all that is wonderful, is he or she expected to welcome the importation of sweated goods provided only that these sweated goods are manufactured in some other country?
Why, indeed?
Why object to the sweater in London and welcome him in Belgium or Japan or India?
Then the hon. Member gets worked up to a pitch of enthusiasm, and he bursts into poetry. He says:
Wide open the ports and let them in free, Though they starve the puir wifies o' bonnie Dundee.
The hon. Member goes on—
The Liberal party says, 'No interference with the products of the foreign sweater.'
So does his own party, and what is the hon. Member going to do about it.
Free imports without qualification, and without question as to the labour conditions under which these imports are manufactured. But surely, whatever else that may be, it is non-Socialist and it most certainly is destructive of trade unionism. If a Capitalist in Dundee were to start a jute factory in England and pay his labourers 4d. a day, the jute workers of Dundee would be on the warpath. They would see that such a wage would soon drag down the miserably low standard in Dundee. But if this same capitalist opens his factory at Calcutta, as some others have already done, and gels cheap 4d. a day labourers and produces jute bags at a price at which Dundee cannot compete, ought the trade unionist of Dundee to cry 'hurrah for free imports of the sweated jute bags?'
That is very sound common sense
I am not suggesting
he goes on—
that a Socialist. Government would place a tariff upon these sweated jute bags".
Hon Members do not like tariffs. They cannot bear the word "tariff," but they go much further. They are in favour of Prohibition, which
means that they will not let things in at all.
I believe that the Socialist policy lies in another direction altogether. I believe that a Socialist country would prohibit absolutely the importation of sweated goods".
So says the hon. Member for Dundee, but let us see how Prohibition will work out—[An HON. MEMBER: "Are you in favour of Prohibition?".]
An hon. Member has asked me whether I am in favour of Prohibition. There is not much in a name, one way or the other, but anything that might prove to be a remedy I would examine. Let me examine the proposal. I put this formula to hon. Members above the Gangway, and I suggest to them that to be logical and consistent members of trade unions and of the Labour party ought to accept this formula, that to whatever extent goods are imported into this country made under conditions inferior to trade union conditions here, to that extent the makers of those goods arc blacklegging the British workman. I want to examine for a moment the declared policy, I will not say of the Labour party, but of a very lively and pronounced section of the party. Prohibition, under the formula which I suggest that hon. Members above the Gangway are bound to accept, would mean that you would accept no goods from France, Belgium, Scandinavia, Italy, Holland or any country in Europe. You would accept goods from no country in the world except the United States of America. In that case, how do you propose to pay for your imports?

Mr. JOHNSTON: That is your formula, not ours.

Sir G. DOYLE: I am suggesting a formula which. I think hon. Members, if they are logical, arc bound to accept, and what I would like to know is, how under that policy of prohibition you arc going to pay for your imports. The policy of the trade unions during the last few years has degenerated, and since the Labour party has become a political party and since politics have come first I will not particularise or specialise as to what comes second—before the general interest of trade unions, there has been a degeneration. In 1888, the official report of the Parliamentary Com-
mittee of the Trade Union Congress said:
The demon of cheapness has pervaded our whole social system and while the cheapness of goods has been a matter of wonder, the purchasers seldom or never give a thought to the human blood and muscle that have been ground up in the production of the article.
That would be a very wholesome thing for hon. Members to bear in mind, when they go out wholeheartedly for the importation of sweated goods, because it is a kind of religion to which the Liberal party profers. It is a long step in the right direction that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) refuses to sail in the same boat.
Every Member of this House knows perfectly well that the state of trade and industry in this country is alarming. The outlook is dark. We are not maintaining out place in the world's trade. It is true that our export trade is of great importance, but it is also true that our home trade is probably three or four times greater than our export trade. It is, I believe, true that we depend not merely for our' prosperity but for our very-existence on being able to hold our own as a manufacturing and producing nation and to sell our goods overseas in export in order to pay for the goods which we must import. If that be true, surely it is equally true that the home market which is three or four times greater is three or four times more important. Yet hon. Members know that the home market is invaded and honeycombed by the sweated goods that come in from abroad, made under any conditions or no conditions, and certainly under conditions which hon. Members would not tolerate for a moment.
In the Board of Trade Journal for January, 1922, comparing the trade of the last three years with that of the year before the War, on the basis of values recorded in 1913, we find that imports were greater in 1924 than in 1913, measured by quantities, by about 74 per cent.: that re-exports were less by 3 per cent. than in 1913 and that our exports were less by 20 per cent. in quantity than in 1913. Therefore, our export trade in quantity of manufactured goods, which are the life blood of the country, depreciated in volume by 20 per cent., while
the imports increased by 7 per cent. I had intended to give a statement of German and other wages as compared with those of the British workmen—

Mr. KELLY: I hope you will give us those figures.

Sir G. DOYLE: I do not want to weary the House. I have taken up a long time already. I want to say a word about the coal trade. In the old Tariff Reform days, when Mr. Samuel Storey and I were supporting Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's policy—

Mr. BATEY: You never succeeded.

Sir G. DOYLE: We never quite succeeded.

Mr. BATEY: You never succeeded.

Sir G. DOYLE: And for this reason, that when we went into the colliery villages, some of which the hon. Member so worthily represents, we were received very coldly, and made very little impression. We were told, "The coal trade is safe from any competition. You must talk to somebody else."
Let the galled jade wince.
My withers are unwrung.
But there is a different outlook now. I want to give one or two extracts from an article written by the right hon. Member for Shettleston in the "Glasgow Eastern Standard" last week. He refers to the coal industry, and says:
9.0 P.M.
What is going to happen in, say, the coal industry? Our miners have a universal seven-hours working day. Germans work nine hours. The additional transport cost of bringing coal from Germany to Glasgow instead of from Lanarkshire is equal to a half-hour per day of the miner. Thus for every seven tons of coal the Lanarkshire miner delivers in Glasgow the German sends eight and a half tons. The purchaser of coal, when offered eight and a half tons instead of seven tons for the same amount of money, will take the larger quantity. In these circumstances at least all the thin and less profitable seams of Lanarkshire must be closed, the capital invented lost and the workers put on the dole, or miners must work for less wages. The same prospect exists with regard to factory goods. In China we have just been told children from four years of age and upwards are employed in the mills. According to Liberal Free Trade we should welcome such competition. Perhaps I am not quite accurate. We should welcome it if it took place in Calais but not in Dover or Caithness. What difference does the locality of the sweating make? Only the cost of transport.
Many hon. Members on the opposite benches represent the great organised industry of the coal trade. There is a rumour that a syndicate has been started in Glasgow for the purpose of importing German coal cheaper than it can be produced in Lanarkshire or in this country generally. I am told that the syndicate is shortly about to operate and that German coal will be imported into this country more cheaply than it can be produced at our pits. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the name?"] The name is Hugo Stinnes. There is no need for me to dwell upon the serious position in the coal trade in this country. To-day the owners are not making a profit, or are making very little profit, and the men are not getting subsistence wages, and in many cases it seems that the industry cannot go on. If German coal is coming in here to undercut your coal in your great industries, what are you going to do? [HON. MEMBEES: "Remove the mining royalties!"] The mining royalties are only an infinitesimal proportion of the total price of a ton of coal. Hon. Members would call into existence an 80-ton steam hammer to crush a fly. This matter of the coal trade and the competition that is offered by Germany is one of great concern to all Members of this House. I have statistics which I am afraid I shall not have time to read, but Mr. Brownlie, who is president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, has just been to Cologne, and he has written a report on the conference which he had there with the German metalworkers' organisation. Along with him were Mr. John Hodge and Mr. T. McKenna.
Mr. Brownlie told the conference that while no attempt was being made at present to interfere with the eight-hour day in the metal trade, the fact that German workers were working more than eight hours was a serious menace to the continuance of the eight hours day in Britain. The wages paid to steel smelters and road iron workers on the Continent were low in comparison with the wages paid British workers in the same industry. He gave the following figures: Belgium, £1 14s. for a 48 hours week; France, £1 13s. for 48 hours; Germany, £2 2s. 6d. for 60 hours; Britain, £3 3s. 7d. for 48 hours I have a series of figures which
put the scale of wages in Germany at very much less than this, but I shall not trouble about them. The Report further indicates that:
There was also a discussion on trade agreements and European iron combines. Mr. R. Oessmann of Stuttgart who introduced the discussion said that the policy of the German industrialists was to export their products to Great Britain under the banner of Free Trade, but to tax heavily all imports. Mr. John Hodge took part in this discussion telling the conference that while Great Britain is the only country in the world with a Free Trade fiscal policy, there are in Britain to-day a number of Trade Union leaders who are doubtful whether the policy of Free Trade is beneficial to Great Britain, and that they are seriously considering whether Protection would not alleviate unemployment. 'We formed our trade unions,' he said, 'for the protection of the worker against the employer, also the protection of the good employer against the bad employer. Why not carry out our policy further and protect the nation of good employers and workers from the operations of a nation of bad employers? In the present instance Germany is the bad employer.' He concluded by saying that the solution of the problem was an international eight-hour day, higher wages, and universal Free Trade. A resolution in favour of universal Free Trade was passed with acclamation.
The irony of it. All these foreign countries with their tariffs meet and pass resolutions with enthusiasm for Free Trade all round, but they never practise it. Instead of that you have tariffs in every country in Europe and in America. I put before this House one main simple definite question. I do not want this Debate to roam over all the familiar fields of the whole fiscal policy which has been discussed so often in this House, but I would like to have a definite reply from hon. Members: yes or no, are you in favour of the continuance of the unrestricted importation of sweated goods into this country?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I beg to second the Motion.
I cannot help thinking that many hon. Members on the Labour Benches will go homo to-night with food for thought. They will begin to wonder where they stand, because they have heard such plain truths from my hon. Friend with regard to statements made by various important members of the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] There is much that I would like to say, but I do not intend to go on, because I am not going to be the means of stopping a Division which
may put Some hon. Members in rather a difficult position. I have noticed that in January last, at a meeting in Nottingham of the lace industry, a resolution was passed by the trade union in favour of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, because it was found that the lace trade was interfered with so much by foreign competition. I was rather interested to see that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) supported that resolution, and indicated that, as far as he was concerned, he would do all in his power to see that the wishes of the meeting were satisfied. That means that in effect he said, "As far as lace is concerned—I represent a lace constituency—we must not allow the free importation of lace into this country, because it interferes with the livelihood of the people in my constituency." If that is advisable in the one industry, surely hon. Members must stop to think whether in certain circumstances it is not also advisable in other industries.
When my hon. Friend was moving this Resolution and spoke about sweated labour, I noticed that the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) made the interjection, "Sweated labour, yes, as regards this country." Are we to understand from that, that trade unionism stands for this—that we will protect the labour of the people of this country, we will not allow the labourer to sell his labour except at a price which is accepted and recognised by the trade union. We will not allow blacklegism of any kind to come in and under-sell us." The hon. Member for St. Helens said, "I do not mind. I want only to protect sweated labour in my own country. On the other hand, I am here as a representative of the British working man, and, although T represent him, in my opinion he is desirous of throwing open the gates, the markets, of this country, free, gratis, and without a penny piece being paid towards the upkeep of our Army, or Navy or any of our Forces. The foreigner shall come in and sell the products of sweated labour in this country, although I recognise that it could not be produced, and they would not allow it to be produced, under the same conditions in this country."

Mr. SEXTON: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not misrepresent me. I said no such thing,
neither did I infer it. But I do agree to stopping them coming in altogether.

Sir F. HALL: If my hon. Friend says that that is his intention, I am delighted to hear it; but he will not mind my drawing his attention to the interjection ho made, which undoubtedly will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow if it was heard in the Reporters' Gallery. I particularly made a note of it at the time. As soon as my hon. Friend referred to the question of sweated labour, the hon. Member for St. Helens interjected "At home." That is perfectly plain. I am very glad that the moving of this Resolution has brought about my hon. Friend's conversion in that particular. There is an old saying that there is great rejoicing over one sinner that repenteth. Apparently the hon. Member, after having paid attention to the speech of my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution, has thought the matter over, and has said to himself, "How is that going to do in my constituency? How will it be if it is reported in my constituency that I am prepared to accept in this country the product of sweated labour, when I am not prepared to accept it?" I can quite understand that it might be a little inconvenient to the hon. Member. At least we have got him to admit that he is not in favour of that. Then he must be In favour of the policy which I support.

Mr. SEXTON: No.

Sir F. HALL: The hon. Member will not think that I wish to misrepresent him; far be it from that. But I have stated the fact exactly, and I repeat that I am delighted that the discussion so far has brought out a confession by one hon. Member that he is opposed to permitting the product of sweated labour to come into this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who brings it in?"] Who brings it in? The result, unfortunately, of the policy that operates at the present time. I do not disguise the fact that I have always been in favour of the policy of protecting our own industries in this country, and I have stated so. But, unfortunately, it is not the policy of the Government at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not believe in it! "] Hon. Members say the Government do not believe in it. I cannot speak for the Government, because I do not happen to be in their innermost mind. But I can
speak for myself. £299,000,000 worth of foreign-manufactured exports have come into this country, as compared with £179,000,000 worth in 1913. Those are the figures. That must be taking wages away from the British working man at home.

Mr. SEXTON: How is the hon. Member going to stop it?

Sir F. HALL: My hon. Friend has put a very plain question to me. I do not happen to be in the difficult position of sitting on the Government Bench, and what I am in favour of—I have never faltered, and have stated my views in a constituency for which I happen to have been returned since 1910—is a policy of protecting the labourer in this country. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), whom I am delighted to see in this House—he is a very near neighbour of mine, but although a near neighbour, we cannot all agree—made a speech in this House only last month, and, referring to the question of Free Trade, said that as far as he was concerned it was a policy to which he did not subscribe. What policy are we going to have? My hon. Friends do not agree with the policy of Free Trade. They say they do not agree with the policy of protective measures and yet my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens now states that he does not agree with allowing the products of sweated labour to come into this country. If he does not he must vote for the Motion. He cannot have it both ways. I want to stop the increased importation of foreign manufactured articles. I do not believe in giving many figures, but I propose to give some for the information of my hon. Friends in case they may not know the exact position. Perhaps if they saw these figures in the Board of Trade returns they would be in a hurry to turn over the pages, in case some of them might be converted to the policy of protecting labour in this country. What are the figures? In the year 1913 £178,000,000 worth of foreign manufactured articles were imported. In 1921 the figure was £225,000,000; in 1922 it was £229,000,000; in 1923 it was £256,000,000, and in 1924 no less than £299,865,978 worth, or practically £300,000,000 worth of foreign manufactured articles came into this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "How did we pay for them?"] Hon. Members ask
how did we pay for them. I am not going to suggest a policy of prohibition. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. T. Johnston), whose plain-spoken statement I respect, has declared that he is in favour of prohibiting sweated goods coming into this country. Is that policy subscribed to by the majority of the Labour Socialist party? I wonder.
Taking for the sake of argument the figure of £300,000,000, I will cut it in half and say that £150,000,000 should be and could be produced at home. I think it is generally recognised as a round figure by trade union leaders that 50 per cent. in the cost of manufactured articles represents labour. As a rough-and-ready calculation, if you take it that £150,000,000 worth of foreign manufactured articles were imported which should have been produced here, surely that shows at once that by producing the articles here you would increase the wages bill of your own country by £75,000,000. That statement may appear illogical to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but it seems plain to me. I have never posed in this House as a great authority on political economics, but I have always been a business man and have looked at these matters from the business point of view, and I challenge my hon. Friends above the Gangway to controvert my statement. If you can get another £75,000,000 of wages in this country, it does not require a great amount of common sense to see that it must be a benefit to this country. I am delighted to have the opportunity of seconding the Motion. I am going to call a halt now although there are many other things I should like to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] No, I shall not go on, but before sitting down I wish to remark that I do not see, many of my hon. Friends of the Liberal party in their places. I can understand that this discussion might have been a little difficult for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I can quite recognise that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) might find it difficult to reconcile his latest speeches with the statements which he made when he was seated on the Treasury Bench as President of the Board of Trade. We do not want too much stalemate to-night,
but my hon. Friends the Liberals are conspicuous by their absence, possibly because they found that this discussion might be a little difficult for them. I sincerely trust we are to have a straight vote on this question. Let us have the courage of our own convictions. It does not matter whether we are politically opposed to each other or not, I have many Friends on the Labour Benches and even on the Liberal Benches and, after all, what matters is what is the real intention of this House and that we can only ascertain by a straight vote.

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move to leaye out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead there of the; words
as the interests of British workmen and of trade unionism cannot be helped by tariffs, and, having no confidence in the professed concern of the Conservative party for trade union principles, this House declines to pass a Resolution which suggests no effective remedy for the problems with which it is supposed to deal and which, while purporting to protect trade unionism against the effects of sweating abroad, fails to recognise that the causes and consequences of sweating at home and abroad arc one and indivisible and should be dealt with as a whole.
We have listened with great pleasure to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, and we have been delighted to hear the Mover speak of the "rigid and logical principles of trade unionism," with which he said he found no fault. I do not know whether the hon. Member speaks for the rest of his party or not. We arc accustomed to hear a great deal of criticism of the principles of trade unionism from hon. Members on the other side. On the Friday before last a Bill was brought in which was intended to interfere very considerably with some of the principles of trade unionism in this country. [HON. MEMERS: "No!"] It was withdrawn as the result of a combination of the good will expressed by the Prime Minister in a very remarkable speech and of the lively sense of good tactics, which some of cur opponents displayed on that occasion. I do not wish, having regard to the comparatively late hour of the night, to spend too long in dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" of the adherents to trade unionism among hon. Members on the opposite side of the House in their attitude towards wages in connection with the Weir houses or towards wages
in the so-called sheltered trades. The principles of trade unionism, as applied by the National Union of Railwaymen. and the other organisations of railway-men, we have often been told, are preventing the revival of trade, and that it is only the principles of trade unionism which are preventing the lengthening of the working day in the mines, which, we are told, is necessary if we are to compete with foreign countries.
The two hon. Members who have spoken this evening have been reading in the "Daily Mail" and other papers of a serious split in the Labour party on the fiscal issue. I wish them joy of their latest mare's nest. Our attitude as a party is perfectly clear. On the one hand, we have continually expressed our opposition to tariffs in resolutions at Labour party conferences at party meetings and in speeches on the platform and in this House. We re-affirm that opposition in the Amendment which I am moving to-night. We have continually expressed the view that tariffs afford only one more opportunity, of which our present social system affords a good Dumber, for the few to fleece the many. We have continually maintained that tariffs raise the cost of living, that they safeguard profits, but that they do not safeguard either wages or decent hours of labour. We have said that before, and I have very great pleasure in saying it again to-night. We have said before, and I am glad to repeat it, that tariffs play into the hands on and strengthen the combines and trusts which are robbing the working men every day of their lives.

Sir G. DOYLE: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but tariffs do not occur in the Motion at all.

Mr. DALTON: They occur in the Amendment I am moving, and I was about to give a simple illustration of the way in which tariffs are advocated, though not in the terms of the Motion, but in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir G. Doyle). You can find many illustrations of the working of combines. Let me take one from Birmingham. In and around Birmingham they make bedsteads, and all the firms which make bedsteads in and around Birmingham have joined in a combine in order to fleece the consumer, or,
rather, I should say the sleeper. To each of these firms is allotted a quota. If they produce more than their allotted quota, they are fined. If they produce less they are rewarded for "ca'-canny." According to an official report, one firm have withdrew from production altogether and discharged all their employés, but the shareholders were not left empty. At the end of the year they received an allowance from the pool which was being fed by the fines from the members of the combine that produced too much. Is that the kind of thing hon. Members opposite want to make more frequent?
Even under Free Trade we have a great number of cases where trusts and combines have got a grip, not only upon the party machinery of the Tory party, but also, and this is much more important, upon the general public of this country. If we are going to support any scheme of tariffs, we are simply going to strengthen these combines to continue on their evil courses. If we take the big industries of this country which are working to-day under sweated conditions, I venture to submit that not in a single one of them would this proposed policy of the Mover of this Resolution be of the least avail. He spoke of coal mines. It is quite true that the British coal industry-has been reduced to the state of a sweated industry. That is true, but not because of the importation of German coal into this country in the past. All he told us was that Hugo Stinnes, junior, assisted, I suppose, by certain British and Scottish capitalists, is going to set up a business shortly in Glasgow for the importation of sweated coal from Germany. That does not account for the fact that the coal industry is sweated now. It has been sweated for the last two or three years for a number of reasons; partly because of the broken promises with regard to the Sankey Commission's Report; partly because of the gross inefficiency of the coal owners in the management of their business; partly because of the Treaty of Versailles and its provisions and the Separation muddles that have been made ever since; partly because of the occupation of the Behr by French troops and the compulsion on Germans to work an extra hour under the pressure of French bayonets. Those are the reasons the British coal industry
to-day is, as the hon. Gentleman says, in a sweated condition.
Then take agriculture, represented hero by a solid phalanx of Conservative Members. Agriculture is a sweated industry. The agricultural labourer is paid a sweated wage though not so sweated as it was before the late Government passed, with considerable difficulty and in face of opposition, both from the Liberal and Conservative parties, the Wages Board Bill, which has increased the wages of agricultural workers by £4,000,000 a year. But in spite of that it is a sweated industry. Are we going to keep out sweated food imports? That was not mentioned by the Mover of the Resolution. Are we going to put taxes on food? That was not on the Tory programme at the election? They did not think it wise to introduce it before. Are we to understand that it is part of the new official policy to tax imported food? One might take other industries which are suffering from very severe depression and sweated conditions. Take engineering; take shipbuilding; take cotton. What possible use is it going to be to impose import duties on engineering goods or on ships or on cotton goods coming into this country in order to improve the conditions of those trades? None at all, because they are trades depending upon exports. If you take the main industries in the country which are suffering at the present time from trade depression, the remedy proposed by the hon. Members who have moved this Resolution is of no use at all.
This question has, of course, an international aspect, as has been stated, and we on these benches pin considerable faith to the development of international Labour Conventions. Even some hon. Members opposite have recently been saying that Germany should be encouraged to ratify and conform to the Hours Convention. We believe that, by the development of these international Labour Conventions, a very great deal may be done to raise standards of life and labour and wages and hours throughout the world, and we have continually committed ourselves, as a party, to full support of the policy of the International Labour Office and the development of these Conventions as widely as possible. It is well that we should consider care fully what steps can be taken, and can
effectively be taken, to bring pressure to bear upon any country which should not conform to these Conventions, once passed. It is not, I think, a very easy problem, but we have to consider care fully how far, if you have a number of the leading industrial countries of the world conforming faithfully to these Conventions, it would be possible, by a threat of prohibition of imports from some country which was not conforming, to strengthen the hands of those in that country who wanted to conform, and to make it easier to pull that country into line. I suggest that that is a question which needs very careful consideration, and I hope that hon. Members on the other side will assist us by taking part in the discussion which is quite certain to proceed for some time to come in this country on this matter, and by seeing whether there is some possible solution along that line for the position of one or two countries hanging back behind the others in the improvement of their economic conditions.
I said that our policy in the Labour party on this matter, and what I believe always has been our policy, has two parts: first of all, that we are opposed to tariffs, and, secondly, that we do not fact inclined to join in the Hallelujah Chorus to the blessings of Free Trade which is very often set up in the camp of our hon. Friends on the higher benches below the Gangway. We do not believe that Free Trade alone is any remedy for the social evils from which we are suffering. [Interruption.] I am very glad to hear that hon. Members below the Gangway are gradually following in the wake of our thought on this matter. But I remember that John Bright opposed the Factory Acts, and I remember a number of other occasions on which those of us who argued for the State taking some conscious and deliberate, action in order to improve the conditions of life of the people were thwarted and opposed by the Liberal party in past days. [HON. MKMBERS: "When? "] I do not want to be led aside into a long historical disquisition, but if hon. Members can prove to me that John Bright did not oppose the Factory Acts, I will take back what I said. I was only recently reading a very favourable life of him by Mr. G. M. Trevelyan, in which that matter was made perfectly clear.
My point is this: We do not believe that Free Trade alone is a key that will open any gateway into any earthly paradise. We believe it has to be supported and backed up by a very great deal more in the way of policy, and that is why, in these Debates in which Free Trade and Protection are introduced, we are not particularly interested to take our stand in the old pre-War ruts, when the politics of this country was a fight between the Liberal and Conservative parties, and when cur party were yet too young to count for much. We are not interested in getting back into those old ruts of Free Trade against Protection. We set against the Protectionist proposals our own positive policy for effecting improvement rather than a mere negative policy of Free Trade, in spite of the fact that, as I have said, we all of us, with, I think, practically no exception, are going to oppose the tariff policy put forward by the Government and by their supporters.
In the last resort, each of us must slay his own dragon, and each country has to break up its own sweaters and deal with them within its own boundaries. We in this country have to deal with sweating primarily as arising from the social and economic conditions of this country. We have to deal with it as arising from a social system which is characterised, on the one hand, by gross inefficiency in production and, on the other, by a gross inequality in the distribution of wealth. The two indictments that we make against what is commonly called the Capitalist system are, first, its failure to deliver the goods in sufficient quantity, and, secondly, the delivery of most of them at the wrong addresses, in addition to which we draw a very broad indictment against the land system of this country, under which, by uncontrolled private ownership, you have large quantities of the land of this country either wasted, misused, or withheld from use altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] You come with me for a week-end, and I will show you. We maintain that these things which I have enumerated are the root causes of sweating and unemployment and social injustice in this country. This Motion that has been moved to-night seems to us to embody a policy which is not only futile, but which is pettifogging and on altogether too small a scale. It is for that reason that we have tabled this
Amendment and have attempted to draw the attention of the House to those much larger and more fundamental issues on which these questions of sweating and bad conditions depend. In the time at our disposal we can do no more than that, and I have very great pleasure in moving the Amendment.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have been very much surprised by the simplicity of the Mover of this Motion, and I am quite in agreement with him that, as we get older, we become simpler ourselves, but the difficulty is to get others to understand that simplicity. He told us, in moving the Motion, that he was surprised at the Amendment on the Paper to be moved by Members of the Labour party. He said he never intended to go into the question of Tariff Reform and Free Trade, but that is just where he went, and he was followed by the Seconder of the Motion, who simply spent all his time in dealing with that question. There is a part of the Amendment which expresses surprise at the great zeal and interest expressed by the party opposite with regard to the trade union movement of this country, and it is something new, because, as workmen, we can remember the sufferings that the workers had to endure at the hands of both the Conservative party and the Liberal party in this country. I want to quote from one great Conservative leader, whose memory is enshrined in the heart of every true Conservative, who, when he was the leader of that party, was regarded by all the Conservative Press as a real, Heavenborn statesman. I refer to the late Lord Salisbury, who, speaking on trade unionism on one occasion, said:
Trade unions are dangerous institutions, and ought to be swept from the country.
I believe that is just how you feel about it now, and, further, I believe that that is just how you have acted ever since the rise of trade unionism in this country. I want to say more than that. I want to say that all the power of Parliament and all the civil power possessed by Parliament has been used for the purpose of destroying the progress of the trade union movement in this country. [Laughter.] I think I will be able to prove what I say. I cannot forget that it was a Liberal Home Secretary who, at the in-
stigation of the mine-owners of this country, sent the military forces of the Crown down to Featherstone, and there used those forces against the unarmed miners. It has always been the case. I can give hon. Members another case, not so very long ago, which is known to every workman on the banks of the Clyde. I refer to "Bloody Friday." The Leader of the Liberal party in the House, the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had made promises to the workers of the country, and told them, in fact, to be more audacious than they had been and to demand from the employers the right to a greater share of the wealth which they produced. He intimated that if they did that they would have the support of the Government in their demand. The workmen came, rather simple men, together, and walked to George's Square in that city of Glasgow, and asked the magistrates and the Lord Provost to appeal to the Government. They urged that the Prime Minister should be asked to come and fulfil the pledges that he had made. The civil forces of the Crown were turned against the workers—against men, women, and children. The civil forces of the Crown were used to beat down these people. It is because we know that you have always done these things that we have no hesitation in saying your pretence as to your regard and your high opinion of the trade union movement is sheer hypocrisy.
I agree with the Mover of the Resolution in one thing; that we have never had Free Trade in this country, and the Liberal party would never have agreed to it. I was reading one of the greatest of our historians, where he was dealing with the position in the country prior to 1846. He makes the statement that the workers of that time were putting up a great fight for the repeal of the Corn Laws, and they were supported in their fight by the manufacturers and capitalists who were in effect the Liberal party of their day. They supported the repeal of the Corn Law's because they believed that if you reduced the price of food the tendency would he to lower the wages of the worker. That has been the aim of that party to which our hon. Friends are now attached.
On the question of sweated labour, I want, to say just one word. I can remember in 1909 when the country was
aflame with the horrible condition in Cradley Heath and other parts of the country, how pressure was brought to bear upon the Liberal Government, and the Liberal Government, because it has always been amenable to that pressure, having in view a political purpose, and being wishful to retain power, put upon the Statute Book the first Trade Boards Act. The Liberal party knew quite well about the sufferings of the people concerned long before they passed that Act. They were quite well aware of the fact, but it was only when the workers, by their efforts, roused public opinion to such an extent to force action that the Government was forced to take account of that action. Thirty years ago I remember that the trade to which I have the honour to belong refused to handle imported joinery; not made in Germany, not made in France, not made in Austria, but made in Canada, so bad were the conditions in Canada. From that time till now it has been a standing order with the members of the Workers' Union not to handle goods made under those conditions.
Might I ask hon. Members not to get away with the idea that there are no sweated industries in this country? You have only to take a walk and go into any of the big cafes in the City of London to see the conditions of the catering industry. You will find women working for 4s. 1d. per week. Out of that wage, they have to pay their expenses to and from their work. It is a crying shame that the Conservative party has refused to help forward trade boards. We contend the principle is a right one, and it will always be our aim, the aim of the Labour party, to try to accomplish the cleaning of our own house before we attempt to interfere with our neighbours. Therefore, we are going to ask for support in stopping any sweated industry in our own country. When we have accomplished that, we will agree with hon. Members to take every possible step to stop sweated goods being imported into this country.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There is at least one common ground between the Motion and the Amendment, and the other Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of Liberal Members. That common ground is that we are all opposed to sweated goods. Every party declares that it will no longer be committed to an unrestricted
traffic in sweated goods. The hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir G. Doyle) offers a remedy. His remedy is tariffs, but he did not spend a moment in telling the House what had happened as a result of the Austrian Parliament putting 33⅓ per cent. tariff upon sweated goods coming into their country. He stands by tariffs; we oppose tariffs. Our objections may be good, bad or indifferent, but at any rate our respective attitudes are clear and distinct. My hon. Friends on the left, I take it, are in favour of preventing the traffic in sweated goods, as we are, by dealing with it through the International Labour Office of the League of Nations, and preventing absolutely the importation and the transportion of sweated goods, as we prevent the importation of indecent postcards, or phosphorus matches, or anthrax goods, or cholera goods, or goods that destroy, or tend to destroy, the health and the life of the British people. I listened very patiently to the hon. Member for Newcastle North, but he never once attempted to define what sweating is. I know there is a tremendous difficulty in doing so, that what are sweated goods in Scotland or England may not be sweated goods in America or Australia, or vice versa, and that India has different standards, and so on. There are various definitions, some based on the money rates paid to the worker, and so on. But surely we have one common ground upon which the hon. Member for Newcastle North could urge his Government to support him, and that is that hours of labour should be universally standardised, and the Washington Convention assented to by representatives of every party in this House.
The Washington Convention set up for most countries a standard of 48 hours per week. Britain has never ratified the Washington Convention, and if the hon. Member for Newcastle North is desirous of helping us to deal with sweated goods he should urge the Government not only to ratify the Washington Convention on behalf of Great Britain but to send their representatives to Geneva to urge every other civilised nation to ratify it. Any country which works its labourers 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 hours a week should surely be put beyond the pale so far as civilised nations are concerned. At any rate, we could take care that sweated goods, goods produced by 80 and 90 hours work a week
should not be introduced into any civilised country. There is a policy for the hon. Member far Newcastle North, but he did not touch upon that. He gave the House, as did his seconded, a speech which might have been applicable to a discussion on Tariff Reform and Free Trade, but which, so far as I could learn, had no relation to the Motion or the Amendment.
10.0 P.M.
Here are some of the instances with which the hon. Member for Newcastle North, hon. Members on these benches, and hon. Members on the benches to my right have got to deal. Whatever views we may hold about Free Trade and Protection, we have got to face certain cold, hard, economic facts. One of the hon. Members talked about silk factories. There is a silk factory on Mount Lebanon, working children all the hours they can possibly be worked, some 13 and 14 hours per day; they are working children of five years of age, making profits for French capitalists; they are making their cheap silk wear and sending it into the neutral markets to cut us out. Then there is the case of cotton. I have a cutting from the "Manchester Guardian," and surely that will not be suspect. It is from the financial column. We are told there, under the heading
Cotton Trade lost to the Japanese"—
If we are to make any headway there will have to be an increase in the hours of labour, and lower wages, because Japanese sweated conditions are capturing our markets in the Near East.

Major SALMON: Did they sign at Geneva?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Do not let me be led away. This is a matter of fact. Neither Britain nor Japan has endorsed the Washington Convention, and if I had time I could tell the hon. and gallant Member something about that; but let me proceed with what I am trying to be at.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Will the hon. Member tell us whether it was the editor of the "Manchester Guardian" who made that statement?

Mr. JOHNSTON: No; I said it was in the financial column. I believe the Government of British India has made a greater attempt to ratify the Washington Convention than any other Government in the world. They reduced their hours
of labour from 72 to 60, a reduction of 12, and there is something to be said for that. But still, the constituency I represent is facing competition from jute mills in India, worked by British capitalists, by Dundee capitalists, which are manufacturing cheap jute goods, and sending cheap jute bags into Britain and the neutral markets of the world, and the constituents whom I represent cannot compete with them What are the conditions under which these people work I they work, officially, 60 hours a week. I asked a question about the death-rate of the Noble Lord who represents India in this House. Out of every 1,000 infants, 667 perished in one year before they reached the age of 12 months, that is, two out of three; and the normal figure is ever 400, 400 out of every 1,000. 98 per cent. of the infants in Bombay—that is a cotton place, not jute—it is admitted by the British medical officer of health, are dragged with opium by their mothers before the mothers go cut in the morning to the factories, so that the children will not be able to cry for food during their absence.
This is under the British flag. It will be time enough for us to cast stones at Japan when we have remedied that state of affairs under the British flag in India. The average wage per head for adults is £10 per annum, 5s. per week. The family wage is 17s. 5d. per week. Sometimes they go down the pits for 36 hours at a stretch with their wives and families, the children included, and they are allowed to do it. I do not say that they are working all that time, but I say that the average Indian family goes down those pits for 36 hours at a stretch, as is officially admitted. Another thing is that 97 per cent. of the families live in single rooms. As to the ages of the children, the doctors declare they have no birth certificates, and that the only way they can test a child's age is by examining its teeth.
Let me come to some other commodity. I think my hon. Friend said, Would we tax food? Certainly the hon. Member for North Newcastle, if he put a tariff on sweated foodstuffs coming in, would be taxing food, and I am not in favour of a tariff. But what are we going to do about the currant industry, the dried fruit industry? I have some official figures here. In Smyrna, they work 11
hours a day trampling on the currants with naked feet, and get 2s. a day wages. I make a present of this to the Empire Preference people. In Australia, where the currants are handled by machinery, the wages are £4 a week, and the hours of labour 48 per week, and they cannot send currants into this country to compete with the sweated currants of Smyrna. We should say to Greece and to Turkey, and to all the nations engaged in the production of these sweated currants, that they must ratify the Washington Convention. I will say nothing about wages for the moment, but we should say that no one shall be allowed to work more than 48 hours a week, otherwise these currants shall be deemed sweated currants, and shall not only be prohibited from entering Great Britain, but from entering every civilised country.
I will take the subject of eggs. Australia could send us liquid eggs. I am not arguing for the moment whether they are good, bad or indifferent, nor am I discussing the question of formaldehyde or any preservative of that kind. I am speaking of the commercial fact as it exists. Australian workers have the 48-hours' week, and the South Australian Farmers' Co-operative Union pay 13s. a day in wages. Australia could send her liquid eggs, but she is prevented from sending them owing to the Chinese sweated labour organised by British capital. Dame Adelaide Anderson, a lady inspector, well known to the Home Office, told the Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, on the 29th January of last year, that she saw in Shanghai, under the British flag-not under the Chinese flag—children working 13 hours a day, without a fixed stopping time for a meal, and those children under six years of age.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are five British cotton mills only in Shanghai, that no children are permitted to work in them under 10 years of age, and that the British owners would like to make the age much higher, but the Chinese parents will not allow them?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I was not discussing cotton mills at all.

Mr. LOOKER: What other mills are there in Shanghai?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I was not discussing cotton mills. I am going to say some-
thing about cotton, but I do not want to be led away by red herrings from the subject I am discussing. I am now discussing eggs. Seventy per cent. of these workers work seven days a week and 13 hours a day. The only holiday they get is the Chinese New Year; when that is, I do not know The firm which does most of the importing of these liquid eggs into this country is a firm controlled by a gentleman well known to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, Lord Vestey. The Union Cold Storage Company controls the entire ordinary share capital of John Layton and Company, Ltd., which imports enormous quantities of these liquid eggs; and the firm called the International Export Company, formed in May, 1914, with articles of association the same as those of John Layton and Company, Limited, and some of the names of the directors the same, although it was dissolved in 1918, so far as our British registration is concerned, is still, as we know, operating in China packing these liquid eggs. These liquid eggs—I have been at some pains to find out the facts—arrive in London now at 88s. per cwt., or 9½d. per lb. I have here one of the tins of these liquid eggs. There are fourteen lbs. in the tin. They come in at 88s. per cwt., and Australian tinned egg factories cannot compete with them. Whatever we may think about Protection and Free Trade, these things have got to be faced. Some of us will believe much more earnestly in the proposals of hon. Members opposite for remedying social grievances, and industrial ills, when we begin to see them tackling men like Lord Vestey, who not only export British capital abroad because they get cheap sweated labour, but bring in these eggs, and prevent a decent traffic in the products of civilised life.
An hon. Member opposite asked me about the cotton factories. The International Labour Office Magazine, Volume 9, No. 12, of the 24th March last year, tells us that in China there, are 1,800 modern factories, including 109 cotton and spinning mills, and that 70 per cent. of the working people work seven days in the week, and get holidays at the Chinese New Year, about which I spoke, though some who are under Christian influence only work six days in the week. In those cotton mills 40 per cent. of the workers are women, 40 per cent. are
children, and there are children under six years of age working in the factories.

Mr. LOOKER: Not in any cotton mills under British management. No less than 75 per cent. of those cotton mills are owned by Japanese and other nationalities.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Member can reply to me after I have concluded my speech.

Mr. DIXEY: Are they English managed?

Mr. JOHNSTON: In those factories of which I am speaking we are told that the hours of work of children are 12 to 14 per day.

Mr. LOOKER: Where are these cotton factories?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Report of the International Labour Office, Volume 6, says that the hours of work for children in the cotton factories are from 12 to 14 per day. They work seven days a week, and their wages are from 15 to 20 cents per day. Some of these children are literally born in the factories, and the Report from which I have already quoted states that at a meeting which Dame Anderson had with the factory owners of Shanghai these owners declared that before they could bring down their hours of labour and introduce better conditions in their factories the regulations would have to be made universal in China, so that the British, Japanese, American, and French capitalists who had invested their money in the exploitation of women and child labour there should not be put at any disadvantage against Chinese and other competitors outside Shanghai.
On this matter I speak for a considerable number of men on these benches who are exceedingly anxious that the Washington Convention shall be put into operation, and that the 48 hours' week shall be made universal, and that they should have in these foreign countries hours of labour just the same as the other workers of the world. If this is done, then you will give your civilisation a chance which it cannot possibly have so long as British capital and skill is being sent abroad to exploit cheap labour to the detriment of the progress of the world.

Major CRAWFURD: This Resolution has been introduced by the Mover in a very pleasant and a very friendly manner, and I do not desire to introduce too controversial a note. There was one state-men, however, made by the hon. Member who spoke last and the hon. Member who sits for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. T. Henderson), which I cannot possibly allow to pass unchallenged. I hope I am not too thin-skinned. I have had a considerable experience of electioneering, and have heard hard things said about me and about other people, but I have realised that in the excitement of elections these things may be said and may be excused. But an hon. Gentleman who is elected to this House has a greater responsibility than those who speak at election times. He represents some 30,000 or 40,000 electors; he represents, perhaps, a large constituency, and the words which he uses are spread through every newspaper in the country. Therefore, as I say, he has a great responsibility. When the hon. Member for Tradeston says of the Noble Earl, who is now in another place, that, at the instigation of the civic authorities, he sent troops to shoot down unarmed miners in Feather stone, the hon. Member is saying—I have not the slightest doubt unconsciously—something that is grossly untrue. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Member made that statement inadvertently. It is a statement which has been made, I think, only once inside this House, but many thousands of times outside this House. It is true that the facts have been printed, published, written and spoken over and over again, and, on the one occasion on which it was uttered in this House, the hon. Member who said it made afterwards an ample apology to the right hon. Gentleman, and that hon. Member was a distinguished and revered leader of the party to which the hon. Member for Tradeston belongs—the late Mr. Keir Hardie.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I desire to say that I did not use the words mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. I said that the gentleman to whom I referred—the Leader of the Liberal party—was Home Secretary, and that, at the request of the mine-owners, troops were sent to Featherstone.

Major CRAWFURD: By whom?

Mr. HENDERSON: Under the authority of the Home Secretary.

Major CRAWFURD: No. Those are exactly the words which I challenge, and I desire to say again, with every consideration for the hon. Member—who, I am perfectly sure, is saying what he believes to be true—that the Noble Earl knew nothing whatever about this occurrence until, I think, 48 hours after it had happened. The hon. Member interjects that he accepted responsibility. In other words, he covered up the action of those who were subordinate to him in a way which everyone who knows him would expect him to do. I do not want to say any more about the matter, but I do want, by getting the utmost publicity for this statement, to try to stop for ever the use of this slander. I accept, of course, entirely the hon. Member's statement if he says he did not know the facts, but all I have to say is that people who make statements as grave as that should go to some trouble to ascertain the facts. [Interruption.] I am sorry to pursue the matter, but the hon. Member uses the phrase that these troops were sent by the Home Secretary at the instigation of the civil authorities. I say they were not, and I say that that is too grave a thing to say of any man unless you are very sure that what you say is true.
Now may I pass for a moment to the Motion which is 'before the House, an-d may I say that I have just a little complaint to make of what was said by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). When he spoke of the sweated conditions of the agricultural industry, and referred to the Wages Board Bill, which is now an Act. I thought he was going to refer to the occasion when his Friends, with the help of hon. Members opposite, rejected the Liberal proposal of a 30s. minimum wage. But when, in order to convict the party to which I belong of complicity and complacency with regard to these conditions, ho has to go back as far as John Bright. I think that is a pretty fair estimate of the value that is to be attached to his testimony. But I think the hon. Member paid rather too small attention to the actual words of the Motion. It professes concern for British and foreign workmen, but I think it was really designed to embroil and to entrap hon. Members above the Gangway on this side. It simulates, as the hon.
Member for Tradeston pointed out, a form of words regarding trade unions and other matters which we are accustomed to hear from Labour party speakers, but stripped of its disguise, as it was during the speech of the Mover and Seconder, it appears simply as naked Protectionist propaganda. The voice is the voice of hon. Members on this side, but the hand is the hand of the industrial group.
When we turn to the Amendment it seems to me that the difficulties which hon. Members had in framing their Amendment appear in the wording of the Amendment itself, and although the hon. Member who moved the Motion in one of his opening passages uttered what sounded rather like a funeral oration on those who sit on these benches, as the Debate went on I began to wonder if we were not witnessing something more like a marriage ceremony, or at any rate the deliberate wooing of hon. Members above the Gangway. I find it difficult to see how hon. Members above the Gangway can find it in their hearts to resist his advances, because it seems to me that any Member who professes what is called Socialism, and who has been at some pains to inquire what is implicit in that belief, must find it very difficult indeed to differ entirely from those who are called Protectionists. It seems to me that Socialism and Protectionism have a great deal in common. I should like to suggest that whatever form of Socialism you may believe in, whether it be a State socialism or one of the forms of guild Socialism or syndicalism, a Socialist organisation which has complete control of the productive industries of the country could not for a moment tolerate the importation of goods from foreign countries which might, by being sent in at a cheaper rate, upset the régime which they had instituted, and therefore it seems to me that the doctrine of Socialism must lead directly to the practice of Protection, just as the practice of Protection must tend towards a state of affairs where the argument for Socialism becomes very much stronger.
But if we turn to the actual Motion, I think, besides this, it contains two distinct strains of thought. There is concern for the sweated labour—and in this I and my friends are entirely at one with the attitude taken up by the hon. Member who has just sat down. If you are think-
ing merely of the humanitarian side of the question of stopping sweated conditions, then I am sure that nobody who professes to be a Free Trader would find the slightest difficulty in joining with hon. Members in taking steps towards that end. I say that, after reading the "Forward" of 21st February, and in spite of the very severe things that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) there says about those who think as I do, I am perfectly prepared, and every Free Trader is perfectly prepared, to stop sweating conditions, and to join with hon. Members in taking appropriate action. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Action of the kind indicated by the hon. Member. Action of the kind indicated by the Washington Convention, and, more particularly, any action which may be made or can be made through the League of Nations.
It seems to me that there is tremendous scope for the activity of any Government in that direction. I am not going "to follow the example of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) and inquire why it was not done last year. I do not think that that sort of quibble helps us. As far as the sweating question is concerned, no Free Trader has the slightest objection to arrangements being made of the kind indicated.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of correction, and as that has been said three or four times, may I point out that when the Right Honourable George N. Barnes moved in this House in July, 1921, the adoption, in the fullest, of the Washington Convention as far as hours of labour were concerned, Dr. Macnamara, who was a leading member of my hon. Friend's party, opposed it.

Major CRAWFURD: The hon. Member must excuse me if I say that I cannot make myself responsible for what happened in 1921. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because conditions obtained then which are very different from conditions to-day. If we are going to pursue the history of the Coalition Government, it will not only be Members of the Liberal party who will be embroiled, but Members of my hon. Friend's party also. Let us get back to the Motion. Let me ask why we were not given some indication of the method which the Mover and Seconder of the
Motion propose to adopt. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Dundee took the trouble of defining sweated labour. Perhaps I can hardly be considered an authority on that subject, but perhaps sweated labour is meant to be something of this sort: Labour which under the conditions which obtain in the country where that labour operates does not receive a wage which enables labour to live up to a decent standard of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If something of that sort be the definition, then it is not in the power of the importing country to know whether those conditions obtain or not in the exporting country, because conditions differ as to the standard of life. What may be a comparatively good wage in one country, may be, comparatively, no wage in another. That is an added reason why all these things must be settled, if settled at all, by the international methods which the hon. Member has indicated.
When we get to what is really behind this Motion it is the old familiar plea for Protection, and it is made under the guise of a plea for the employment of British workmen. What does the argument come to? Hon. Members opposite who support the doctrine contained in this Motion believe that the import of manufactured goods into this country means, or makes, unemployment for British labour. If that be a fact, then I suppose that if we sit with folded arms, that process is likely to go on, more and more imported goods will come into this country, and more and more British workmen will be out of work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear!" They really believe it, so that we may come to this point, that no staple industries will be left in this country, and foreign goods will keep on coming in. May I point out that no goods come into this country except goods which we want, because they come in response to specific demands for them. If that is going to be the state of affairs, why not let this thing go on?
What can be wrong if we can really arrive at a point when we can sit still, or pursue artistic or pleasurable occupations while the benevolent foreigner sends us the things which we want? What more can we want than that? Hon. Members on that side of the House will agree with me that there will be no more class warfare. We shall all be parasitic rich. But
when the hon. Member says, "how are you going to pay for these goods, because you have got to pay for them, but you can only pay for them by the export of goods," the fallacy of the argument is made apparent. We, on these benches, believe in Free Trade. We agree with the hon. Member for Peckham that Free Trade alone cannot solve the problems which we want to solve, but we do say, as I have said before, that without Free Trade these problems will be wellnigh insoluble. We would have preferred a form of Amendment which was moved by some of my hon. Friends, but we do find the Motion moved by the hon. Gentleman illogical and inaccurate, and as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Peckham contains at any rate some measure of truth, and we prefer some truth to no truth, we propose to vote for the Amendment.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: The whole point of the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) was an attack of the idea of sweated industry, but in order to try to score a party advantage, he tried simultaneously to prove that where sweated conditions exist in China, Japan or elsewhere, it was as the result of British capital. I have no right to attempt to speak for anyone, but I should imagine that all on these benches would agree with me when I say that we agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that we want to have no discrimination in favour of British capital in any part of the world if its effect be to operate against British labour in this country.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), in the course of his speech, mentioned a man whose name is held in very great honour in this country, and who was a townsman of my native town—Mr. John Bright—and remarked that he opposed the Factory Acts. I knew Mr. John Bright and I do not think that my hon. Friend did. Mr. John Bright, in the whole course of his life, never supported any injustice of any sort at all. He certainly did fight against any injustice, whether in this country or in any other country. Another point that the hon. Member raised was with regard to trusts or rings in a certain trade in the Birmingham district. He used that as an argument against tariffs.
I ventured to interject, "Was there a tariff on bedsteads in Birmingham?" There is no tariff at all. Therefore, the argument with regard to any trust or ring in that particular industry cannot be used as an argument against tariffs, because the industry is being carried on in a Free Trade country under Free Trade conditions.
I think there is a great deal to be said for the Motion. I would like to give the House an illustration of how unemployment is affected in this country when imported goods, against which we cannot compete, are allowed to enter. I am interested in a business that tried for five years to carry on the manufacture of motor tyres. Unfortunately, we got to that position in which no industry can carry on, when we lost practically the whole of our capital. We tried to carry on for the sake of the labour that we employed. There was never a penny piece of profit made. Hon. Members of the Labour party seem to think that all masters are profiteers, just as they seem to think that we on this side regard all workmen as rogues—which we do not. This money has been lost, not by a war profiteer, because I am not a war profiteer any more than any Member on the Labour benches, but it has been lost by a thousand shareholders, and many of those shareholders have been ground down to poverty because of the loss of their money in this particular industry. Amongst those shareholders are some members and leaders of trade unions in this country I do wish that hon. Members of the Labour party would refrain from always assuming that when any money is made the people who make it are profiteers and rogues, and that when money is lost they are nothing but fools.
The argument is also used that any industry which cannot prosper in this country must of necessity be inefficient. That is all that some hon. Members can say. In the industry to which I have referred, we tried to get the best chemical experience possible. We engaged in research as much as we could. To those who say that we do not believe in research, I would reply that I have done as much as possible, in this House and out of it, to promote research in the cotton industry. In the tyre industry, to which I have referred, some of those who should have been working with us to-day,
are now engaged in selling the very goods which competed against those which we should have been making. I do wish that hon. Members would get out of their minds the idea of always shouting for Free Trade and the doctrines of Cobden and John Bright. I admire the Socialists who do not agree with Free Trade. Some of them believe in Protection, and say so. I admired the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) when he said to-night that he would prohibit the import of sweated goods. So would I. I believe there is a great deal of sympathy between us in our views. Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that I am a strong Protectionist. It is for this reason that I believe in the policy of Protection as against that or Free Trade. It would place us on a party in competition with other nations of the world, and instead of having one-and-a-quarter million of our people unemployed, we would be something like the others, and have all our people at work.

Mr. DIXEY: I understand that hon. Members opposite, many of whom stand first and foremost for Protection, when we come to a Division like this, instead of going out as they ought to do in favour of a straightforward Resolution of this kind, shelter themselves behind some camouflage about the Washington Conference. I am with them entirely, that the Washington Conference should be put into operation, but I do not agree with leaving the matter there. I think we should try and do as much as we can for the benefit of our workers, when' we know that there are people in certain trades who cannot get employment because of the unequal competition for which the party opposite is responsible. May I point out that you put up these rates of wages—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should point it out to me.

Mr. DIXEY: I wish to point out that hon. Members opposite, I think quite rightly, set up a standard here for the working man which is a proper standard, and I am with them entirely in wanting to see that standard applied to all nations, but until that comes about we are bound to protect our industries. There are hon. Members on the Front
Opposition Bench who are as great Free Traders as those who sit in small numbers below the Gangway, and their responsibility is heavy because they are refusing the right to work to people in industry who at the present time are kept out of employment by foreign competition. Leaving party politics aside, there is no harm in this Resolution. It does not commit any hon. Member opposite to a Protectionist programme. Its terms are perfectly clear, and those who support it are pledged to vote against goods produced by sweated labour coming into this country. Hon. Members opposite, instead of voting on this Resolution, have put up an Amendment which is intended to get hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies out of a quandary. Because hon. Member on the Back Benches do not quite hold with the views of their leaders on Free Trade, they have got out of the difficulty by putting up something with which to assuage their consciences. If they had the pluck of their convictions, they would come out and vote with us.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sure the hon. Member who has just spoken will give hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies the credit that they have always been able to get out of their own difficulties without any special assistance either from their own front bench or from the Government Front Bench. I rise, not because I am in any special difficulty, but because the very noticeable absence of any speaker from the Government Front Bench seems to indicate that they are just a little shy about making any pronouncement of their attitude on this matter. Surely this Motion is close enough to the general trade policy of the Government to justify at least one spokesman—even an Under-Secretary—saying a few words to soothe a disquieted and troubled House, but they have not even put up an Under-Secretary. The Debate so far has been taken part in by hon. Members on the Government side, and only by the backest of back benchers. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution devoted most of the 50 minutes during which he delighted the House to reading quotations from my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). All that he did by reading those quotations was to show that a cer-
tain number of us who sit on these benches are prepared to face this problem quite fearlessly. It proved that a certain number of us are thinking and discussing. We are not prepared to say that neither tariffs nor Free Trade matters. This is a problem that has to be faced, whether the right hon. Member for Shettleston or the hon. Member for Dundee were expressing the view on this point of somebody else or arguing another point of view. We are struggling towards enlightenment on this matter. We are quite certain that we are not going to arrive at the conclusion that the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have arrived at, because it is light that we are looking for, not darkness. We are equally certain that we are not going to arrive at the conclusions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side of the House, because we look over a period of 100 years of their Free Trade paradise and see the working classes underpaid, overworked and periodically unemployed, and we can look back abroad in the protected paradises and find exactly the same thing going on.

Mr. DIXEY: What about the United States?

Mr. MAXTON: It is a poor country that has not got one E1 Dorado, but I am quite sure the hon. Member would recognise at once, and would admit at once, that the position in America is not due to the fact that America is protected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have heard other arguments in this House from the hon. Member's associates crediting the great success of America to the absence of trade unionism there, and to the fact that there are no "ca'canny" callers such as we have on the Clyde, and that they have willing workers who are prepared to work all the time at full speed. That they are a superior body of people I have heard given as a reason for American prosperity. I look to the Belgians, to Holland, and to France, and I see all those countries protected by tariff walls, and I see working people working long hours, getting low wages, and a poor standard of life. We say these two things are obviously not enough on their own.
We have got our ultimate theory also, as we believe that all this poverty and
overworking and the poor life that workers generally have is due to the capitalist system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members opposite are wanting me to take a kindly interest in their nostrum, they need not get so irritated or annoyed at my cure. I am not prepared merely to fold my hands and say that this problem should not be approached or tackled until such time as Capitalism is destroyed in this country and Socialism established. I say that there is surely some practical way to meet the problem at the present time. I am particularly interested in the shipbuilding industry. How is any proposition advanced by hon. Members opposite going to meet the problem that we who are interested in the shipbuilding industry are faced with this week in the sending over to Germany of an order for five great motor ships that might quite well have been placed on the Clyde? In dealing with that problem, the newspapers of the hon. Members opposite in my particular area are telling us that the cure for that, to prevent orders for ships going abroad, is that our workers on the Clyde have got to work longer hours and take lower wages. [An HON-MEMBER: "Quite right!"] That is your cure.

Mr. DIXEY: Does not the hon. Member agree that, if you have a system of Protection coupled with a strong system of trade unionism, you get the remedy?

Mr. MAXTON: My hon. Friend is suggesting, I presume, some sort of coalition between this party here and the hon. Members opposite.

Mr. DIXEY: Why not?

Mr. MAXTON: He is suggesting that, if we give them Protection, they will join with us in achieving a social revolution. If the right hon. Gentleman who leads his party is prepared to discuss that behind Mr. Speaker's chair, I am prepared to enter into negotiations.

Sir G. DOYLE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MAXTON: I have no desire that this matter should be talked out.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland- Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Albery, Irving James
Gates, Percy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Globs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.


Allen, Lieut.-col. Sir William James
Goff, Sir Park
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nelson, Sir Frank


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grace, John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Nuttall, Ellis


Balfour, George (Hamphead
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Oakley, T.


Balniel, Lord
Gretton, Colonel John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barnston, Major sir Harry
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Oman, Sir Charles William C


Beamish, Captain T. p. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pennefather, Sir John


Bellairs. Commander Carlyon W.
Gunston, Captain D. w.
Penny, Frederick George


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking. Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bethell, A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perring, William George


Betterton, Henry B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Birchall. Major J. Dearman
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harland, A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Harrison, G. J. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radford, E. A.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Raine, W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hawke, John Anthony
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, J. R.


Brittaln, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rentoul. G. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brown, Brio.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Ncwb'y)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)


Broun- Lindsay. Major H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts. Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Burman, J. B.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ropner, Major L.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rye, F. G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Homan, C. W. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campbell. E. T.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Camlet. Captain Victor A.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton
Hume. Sir G. H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Huntingfield, Lord
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Christie, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smithers, Waldron


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jacob, A. E.
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jephcott, A. R.
Spender Clay. Colonel H.


Cope, Major William
Kindersley. Major Guy M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Couper, J. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cowan. Sir Wm. Henry (Isllngtn. N.)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crook, C. W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Storry Deans. R.


Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handew'th)
stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Galnsbro)
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Lougher, L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Templeton, w. P.


Dalkeith. Earl of
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Thomson. Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Davles, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson. Sir Philip
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Dlxey, A. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Waddington, R.


Drewe. C.
Maclntyre, Ian
Wallace. Captain D. E.


Eden, Captain Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.


Elveden, Viscount
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells. S. R.


Falle. Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Merriman, F. B. t
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Flelden, E. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fleming, D. P.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, R. R. (Staflord, Lichfield)

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 137.

Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, E. (Chett'r, Staly'ge & Hyde)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).



Womersley, W. J.
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Wragg, Herbert
Sir Grattan Doyle and Sir




Frederick Hall.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. WALLHEADrose —

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERODROME EXTENSION) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenditure incurred by the President of the Air Council under any Act of the present Session, to authorise the President of the Air Council to stop up a portion of a road known as Plough Lane, in the urban district of Beddington and
Wallington, in the county of Surrey, and in lieu thereof to widen an existing road and to construct a new road within the said district, and to acquire such land and carry out such works as may be necessary for the purposes aforesaid, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Colonel GRETTON: I understand that this is an estimated amount of £71,500 for the enlargement of Croydon aerodrome. I do not propose to say any word to-night as to the necessity of enlarging and improving this aerodrome; I only want to ask the Minister, who will reply for the Government, to assure us that this aerodrome is public property, that there is no alteration in its status,
that it is to be available for the use of the Forces of the Crown on any occasion of national emergency, and that the arrangements with the company are not-such as will in any way impede the use of the aerodrome for national purposes.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): I can give an affirmative answer to all the points that my hon. and gallant Friend has raised. I think it is generally admitted that this work on the Croydon Aerodrome is for the country's interest. It is the largest cavil aerodrome in the Kingdom, and this work is essential to make it safe. It is for a public purpose,
and a very desirable public purpose. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will be satisfied with that assurance.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Byres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.